Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the serious difficulties which have arisen in securing personnel to distribute food, coal and milk, he will consider scheduling those industries as protected establishments?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the admission to the Register of Protected Establishments of the industries mentioned would not be of material assistance to them in overcoming any difficulties which may have arisen in securing personnel.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very desperate situation in some food shops which are unable to secure assistants? Is he aware also that one co-operative society in my constituency has advertised in six separate newspapers for assistants and cannot get any, and that in the end it is quite possible that the customers will have to serve themselves in some shops?

Mr. Bevin: On the last point, I would say that they may get better weight if they serve themselves. But that question put to me is whether I will make these shops protected establishments. My answer is that that particular Order would not help them.

Mr. Burke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not a question of short weight, but of long waits? There is need for the reservation of some men in provision shops, as some of the heavy weights to be lifted, such as sides of bacon, cannot be handled by women staffs.

Mr. Bevin: I quite agree, but my answer is that that particular Order would not help that.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no discrimination between large establishments and small establishments, bearing in mind that a small establishment sometimes experiences difficulties which a large establishment does not?

Mr. Bevin: There has been the closest collaboration between my Department and the distributive trades, and the instructions which have gone out provide for consultation. It is intended that the arrangements shall not deplete distributive personnel more than we can help.

TRENT GUNS AND CARTRIDGES, LIMITED.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether collective bargaining on behalf of the employees has been accepted by Trent Guns and Cartridges, Limited, arising out of the report of the court of Inquiry, Cmd. 6300?

Mr. Bevin: I regret that the company has not yet indicated any change in its attitude. I am in consultation with the Ministry of Supply on the subject.

Mr. Mander: Does not my right hon. Friend think it intolerable that in wartime an employer should defy public opinion by refusing to consult with a trade organisation for protection of his workers? Will my right hon. Friend not take drastic action?

Mr. Bevin: Yes; but the question relates to one firm out of thousands in the country. The point is whether I can deal with this matter through the contracting Departments without the necessity of other legislation, and I am in consultation with the Minister of Supply on the matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, at a time where there is everywhere an acute shortage of all categories of labour and earnings are at their highest level, the misleading character of the Return of 16th June, showing nearly 250,000 wholly unemployed, is demonstrated, he will take advantage of there being a non-party Government to introduce a form of statistical presentation more illustrative of the true position?

Mr. Bevin: The significance of these figures has been explained on a number of occasions, and I cannot agree that as now presented they are either incorrect or misleading. Substantially, the only change that could be made would be either by suppressing some of the details and thereby giving an opportunity for unscrupulous misrepresentation, or by ceasing publication altogether.

DIRECTIONS TO WORKERS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the number of cases involved, the hardships which result to the persons affected and their families, and the loss of work which ensues in some of these cases, he will abandon the practice of prosecuting workers who are fined and imprisoned for failing to take up work on the directions of Employment Exchange officers, and rely on the voluntary principle instead?

Mr. Bevin: Directions are issued to workers only where the national interest requires. There is a proper machinery of appeal so that a worker who feels aggrieved by the issue of directions in his case can have the whole circumstances reviewed by an independent tribunal. If, in the light of the recommendation by the Appeal Board, it is decided that the directions should be enforced, the worker must know that he is breaking the law if he disobeys. I cannot agree to refrain from prosecution in such cases. I would add that only in a relatively few cases is prosecution necessary. I acknowledge the public spirit with which the vast majority of workers accept directions given to them.

Mr. Davies: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position, in view of the fact that when he compels men who are already on work of national importance to go down into the pit and reduce their wages by £2 or £3 a week he cannot possibly get willing co-operation from them? Why cannot he rely on the voluntary principle?

Mr. Bevin: If the House of Commons had thought that the voluntary principle would have met the necessities of the war, they would not have carried the Resolution directing me to direct workers where they were required. This House passed that Motion, and I carry it out in the national interest.

Mr. Davies: But the House of Commons gave the right hon. Gentleman power to prosecute employers, too. He has not done that?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I have.

Mr. Davies: He has not sent any of them to gaol.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the irritation caused by the privileged position occupied by conscientious objectors detailed by the tribunals for agricultural work as compared with other agricultural workers and, in particular, with men in the armed forces of the Crown employed in agriculture, as they cannot be compelled to work overtime, and if they start at 7 a.m. they cease at 3 p.m., less three-quarters of an hour for refreshment plus half-an-hour for travelling if at a distance from work, while other agricultural workers with whom they may be employed have to continue at work until dusk without these special privileges; and whether steps will be taken to place conscientious objectors under some form of military discipline capable of controlling their work?

Mr. Bevin: The National Service Acts provide that men may be registered as conscientious objectors conditionally upon their undertaking work specified by the tribunal, of a civil character and under civilian control; there is no reason why such men should be in a privileged position as compared with other workers. If my hon. Friend would give me particulars of any cases that he may have in mind, I would look into the matter. The suggestion that some form of military discipline should be applied in such cases does not seem to me to be a practicable one, quite apart from any question of principle that would be involved.

Sir W. Davison: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for what he says; but is he aware that, so far as I am able to find out after having seen some of these men, no one has any control whatever over them? Does he not think that, having been excused military service, they should be under some discipline to make them discharge the agricultural service which the tribunals have allotted to them?

Mr. Bevin: I have no evidence to bear out the suggestion contained in the


question. I do not think I should be asked to give a reply unless I am sent evidence that these men are not carrying out their obligations.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to an advertisement in an evening paper in which a theatrical association are asking conscientious objectors to apply to them for employment as male dancers?

Mr. Bevin: I have to read so many papers that I have not time to read the advertisements.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour his policy with regard to the transference of domestic staffs to war work; and, in particular, whether it is his intention that women, engaged on work of public importance, shall be compelled to give it up through being entirely deprived of domestic help at home, if their staffs happen to be young, while people still employing excessive domestic staffs consisting of older persons can retain them all?

Mr. Bevin: Generally speaking, no woman in the registered age groups, engaged in domestic service, will be required to transfer to other employment if she can be shown to be essential to the household. Women in the older age groups will be dealt with in the same way when they are registered.

DISABLED PERSONS (REHABILITATION).

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Labour whether the rehabilitation scheme announced in August as under consideration has yet come into effect; and what part of the Ministries of Health and Pensions have played, and will play, in its preparation and working?

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to the development of his plans for the rehabilitation of workers invalided from the various services back into industrial life; how many men discharged as unfit have received or are receiving training; and how many have so far been restored to normal industrial activities?

Mr. Bevin: As stated in answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr.

Dobbie) on nth September, the interviewing of disabled persons in hospital has already been started by my Department. This has been undertaken in co-operation with the various Departments concerned and the hospital authorities. A leaflet describing the interim scheme for the resettlement and training of disabled persons has been prepared and as soon as this is ready for issue I will make a public announcement. In regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin), I regret that no such statistics are available.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is my right hon. Friend assured that the: duty of seeing rehabilitation methods employed during treatment in hospital is being carried out so as to lessen the work of doing it after workers have left the hospitals?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the interim scheme, and I would also emphasise the fact that it is an interim scheme. We are consulting with my right hon. Friends of other Departments in order to develop the thing into a wider and more national and fixed scheme.

Mr. James Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the large number of men in the area where I live who are disabled by silicosis will be brought under the aegis of this scheme?

Mr. Bevin: In the interim scheme the guiding principle will be as to whether they can be made fit for the purposes of other war work. But I am afraid that the wider question must wait for the wider scheme after further discussion with my colleagues.

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement on the progress of the schemes for the recuperation, training and rehabilitation of persons injured in the defence, fighting and production services; and how many persons have so far been treated under these schemes, and with what measure of success?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the circulars which have been sent to hospital authorities, setting out the arrangements for the treatment and rehabilitation and for securing the subsequent training of fractures cases, including persons injured in the defence, fighting


and production services. Numbers of patients have been successfully treated at centres which have already been in operation for some time, but detailed figures are not available.

Mr. Martin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the total number awaiting treatment have been treated?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I could not.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that there is the fullest possible co-operation between all Government Departments affected in this matter, and are steps being taken to get voluntary institutions to co-operate?

Mr. Brown: Undoubtedly, and I am doing the best I can on my side to make sure that there is an increase in the facilities concerned. The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, however, that it is not merely a question of facilities but of skilled treatment too.

Mr. Martin: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of the large number of persons hurt, disabled or discharged in respect of the different services, including Civil Defence and production, he will consider the rapid development of the clinical and training schemes for their benefit into a comprehensive service, including a State medical service, on a permanent basis?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): In regard to the development of clinical and training schemes in present circumstances, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers to his Questions Nos. 21 and 29 to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health respectively. The Government are giving close consideration to the question of the development of the existing arrangements for the rehabilitation, training and resettlement of disabled persons with a view to framing a comprehensive scheme to meet conditions after the war.

TINPLATE INDUSTRY.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of workers normally employed in the tinplate trade in South Wales that are unemployed; and what steps are being taken to provide them with work?

Mr. Bevin: The latest information available shows that in the South Wales tinplate industry 181 men and 131 women were unemployed. As indicated in my reply of 31st July, 1941, the use to be made of these workers is a matter in the first instance for the local Labour Supply (Iron and Steel) Committee. It is for that body to arrange, so far as is practicable, for any unemployed tinplate workers to be placed in employment in the iron and steel industry as provided for in the special scheme. The remainder will be placed in other work of national importance.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour what investigations have taken place with a view to adapting the idle tin-plate works in Wales for the purpose of war production; and, having regard to the fact that these works were so adapted in the last war, whether he will take steps to secure that they are used in the nation's war effort?

Mr. Bevin: The position has been fully investigated by the Production Executive Regional Board for Wales, and by all the Production Departments. It has not hitherto been found possible to use any substantial proportion of these works for war production, but all steps will continue to be taken to see that no possible opportunity shall be overlooked and further investigation of a proposal to use some of the works is now being made.

ESSENTIAL WORK ORDER (APPEALS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will direct that any notes of evidence, findings of fact and recommendations, communicated to a National Service officer by a local appeal board, constituted under the Essential Work (General Provisions) Order, 1941, shall be communicated also to the applicant and to the other party interested?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. In my view the Orders already provide for doing all that is necessary in the matter of communicating to the parties concerned the decisions arrived at after hearings by local appeal boards.

Sir J. Mellor: As the final decision is a decision of the National Service officer and not of the local appeal board, is it not only fair that the parties to the dispute should be aware of what recommendation has been made?

Mr. Bevin: In many cases the final decision is my own, and we have to remember that the appeal boards make, not decisions, but recommendations, and the evidence in many cases has to be reviewed. Therefore, I do not think that it is wise to circulate anything more than has been circulated at the moment.

Sir J. Mellor: Are they not miscalled "local appeal boards," and should not they be described as advisory committees?

Mr. Bevin: That is a matter of opinion. I think we have got it well understood now that, in industry generally, where the auxiliary procedure exists on a similar basis—and it has been extended to the law—the words "appeal board" generally apply. While it may appear sometimes a little illogical in industrial affairs, the men and employers understand what it means, and that is why it works.

Sir J. Mellor: As they can decide nothing, is not this—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

TRANSFERRED LABOUR (TRAVEL FACILITIES).

Mr. Mort: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to grant free railway passes to transferred workers, under the Ministry of Labour schemes, for occasional visits to their homes; and is he aware that the present arrangement of settlement between the employer and the workpeople is completely unsatisfactory, as the bad employer gets away with it while the good one does the right thing?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given on nth September to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). If it is alleged that an employer is not observing agreed conditions there are appropriate remedies which can be applied.

EX-MINER (MEDICAL FITNESS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that John Irwin, a coal-bagger employed by the Westhoughton Industrial Co-operative Society, an ex-miner, has been passed as medically fit to return to work underground at the direction of his department; that the man was gassed in the great war and has undergone six operations; that he had to leave his employment in the pit

some years ago on three occasions on medical grounds suffering from miner's cramp and sciatica; and will be cancel the direction in this case?

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the statements contained in my Question are true, as I can assure him they are, will he withdraw the direction in this case, as there is no sense in sending this man back to the pit?

Mr. Bevin: I will wait and make sure.

Mr. Davies: On a point of Order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply to this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put a question to the Minister which is purely hypothetical.

Mr. Davies: The fact that the Minister says that he is making inquiries is unsatisfactory, in my view, Mr. Speaker.

CANTEENS.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a further statement as to progress in the establishment of factory canteens?

Mr. Bevin: At the end of July there were canteens selling hot meals at approximately 4,000 factories, including shipbuilding yards, but excluding other canteens and refreshment houses at docks and canteens at building sites. In addition such canteens were being established at about 750 factories. Canteens at building sites numbered 46c; and dock canteens, in so far as they could be distinguished from other refreshment houses at docks, were reckoned at 70, with 37 more in course of establishment. As stated in my Reply of 7th August to a Question by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), factory canteens have recently been coming into actual operation at the rate of about 100 a month.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is an equal meat ration available at every canteen or whether there is some differentiation as between the canteens used by workers in the heavy industries and the canteens used by workers engaged on lighter industrial work?

Mr. Bevin: I must refer the hon. lady to the new announcement which was made yesterday by the Ministry of Food.

Miss Ward: I apologise.

Mr. Loftus: Is my right hon. Friend giving priority to coal mining canteens, as they are far more necessary than many of the other canteens?

Mr. Bevin: The coal mines canteens do not come under my Department. They are being dealt with by the Board of Trade and by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Labour whether vacancies for junior and temporary appointments in all Government Departments are now all filled through the medium of his Department?

Mr. Bevin: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to appointments in Government Departments. So far as I am aware, the rule that such appointments should be filled through the agency of my Department is now generally observed.

Sir I. Albery: Does that rule apply also to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and in filling such vacancies in that Corporation is an endeavour made to employ older women?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.

TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour how many trade boards there are under the Trade Boards Act, 1909; how many workers are governed by the boards; and when the last annual report was printed and obtainable?

Mr. Bevin: There are 52 trade boards covering approximately 1,500,000 workers. The latest available report is that contained in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour for 1938, published in May, 1939.

Mr. Thorne: Are the trade boards now functioning in any way?

Mr. Bevin: Oh, yes, very effectively; and I have improved and increased the inspectorate.

Mr. Mander: Are there any new ones under consideration at present?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot say.

MILITARY SERVICE (OXFORD GROUP).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will institute an independent inquiry into the claim of the Oxford Group to be put on the same footing as other religious bodies in respect of military service?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Sir P. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable in the public interest to state the reasons for the decision he has come to in regard to this Group?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think that there is any more reason why I should state my reasons for this decision than for the millions of other decisions I have made.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is is not true that the Minister has stated his reasons, and that those reasons are illogical?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that the matter is going to be raised in Debate, and I think the House will be satisfied that I have acted rightly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MEDICAL MAN-POWER.

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any report from the committee presided over by the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on distribution of medical man-power, or when such report may be expected?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. An interim report has been received and action is being taken on the recommendations. These include suggestions for the establishment of regional committees to promote the maximum co-operation between civil and service medical establishments, the continued recruitment for the time being of medical officers for the Forces at the rate at which they are now being recruited, the compilation of particulars of bed accommodation and staffing for all civil hospitals and measures to secure greater mobility of resident medical staffs as between one hospital and another.

Sir F. Fremantle: Has this report been passed on to the Central Medical Board?

Mr. Brown: I should like notice of that question.

ANNUAL REPORTS.

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health when the annual reports of his Department and of his principal medical officer for 1939–41 will be issued?

Mr. E. Brown: I hope that the summarised report to which I referred in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 3rd July last will be ready within the next two months. In accordance with the general decision to suspend the issue of Departmental reports not immediately essential to the war effort, the regular series of reports of the Department and of the chief medical officer will be suspended till after the war.

Sir F. Fremantle: Will the main figures of the principal medical officer be put in the report, so that they can be compared with the previous year's figures by the large number of people concerned?

Mr. Brown: I will do my best.

DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether his medical advisers, who are pressing parents to have their schoolchildren inoculated against diphtheria, will give statistics of how many inoculations are necessary and for how long a period immunity is understood to be secured; and whether his Department accepts responsibility in the event of any mishap, fatal or other, arising from the inoculation?

Mr. E. Brown: Immunisation of children against diphtheria necessitates two, or at most three, injections of the prophylactic. It is considered that immunity, once established, persists for years and perhaps for life. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No." As my hon. Friend is aware, inoculation is carried out only with the written consent of the parent of guardian of the child concerned.

Mr. Leach: If the facts with regard to this policy are as nebulous as the Minister suggests in his Answer, what is the value of the policy?

Mr. Brown: I think my Answer was very precise. My definition of "nebulous" disagrees with that of the hon. Member, but I think I have the dictionary on my side.

Mr. Leach: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman does not know how many inoculations are necessary or how long an inoculation lasts?

Mr. Brown: I have said two or three, and I cannot be more precise than that.

ALIEN DOCTORS.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether, as many general practitioners, especially in neutral and reception areas, are seriously overworked owing to the calling up of their medical colleagues yet are debarred from securing the assistance of alien doctors in their private practices, he will consider changing the regulations to permit alien doctors, who have been accepted for the War Emergency Register, to engage in private practice under such conditions as may be thought necessary to protect British doctors, such as the limitation of the permit to the duration of the war, and, if necessary, the restriction of the permit to doctors required to work as assistants to, or partners of, British doctors?

Mr. E. Brown: Under a recent Order of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend, an alien doctor who fulfils the other necessary conditions may be placed temporarily on the Medical Register if he is to be employed as an assistant to a British doctor in private practice. The employment is in each case subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps should be taken by a doctor who wishes to secure the services of an alien doctor?

Mr. Brown: He would take the normal steps which are suitable to the profession, but if he was in doubt, he might write to me.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not true that the Central Medical War Committee undertake these arrangements if they are passed to them?

TUBERCULOSIS.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health to what does he attribute the increase in tuberculosis; how many people suffering from tuberculosis in Britain are waiting admission to sanatoria; and is the increase in non-pulmonary tuberculosis higher in areas where pasteurised milk is unobtainable?

Mr. E. Brown: I have arranged for a special inquiry to be made, with the assistance of the Medical Research Council, into the causes of the war-time increases in tuberculosis. The latest information available shows that on 30th June last there were 1,763 persons in England and Wales who had been on local authority waiting lists for institutional treatment for upwards of 10 days. The information referred to in the last part of the Question is not available.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these 1,700 people suffering from active tuberculosis in this country are a source of danger to their families, and can he say why he permits this state of affairs and does not bring pressure to bear on local authorities?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. We are doing a great deal about this, and we are making arrangements to realise some E.M.S. beds. It is not merely a question of beds, however, but of nurses. This is still one of our most serious propositions.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless he pays the nurses more there will be a dearth of nurses?

Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Lady is mistaken, because, as she knows, conditions are different now with regard to the payment of nurses. Since I have been Minister we have taken immediate steps about the Civil Nursing Reserve; other hospitals have followed that lead, and I am about to set up a central committee on rates of pay as recommended by the Athlone Committee.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend see that the Government give a lead as to what the proper standard of nursing should be?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend knows that the Athlone Committee reported two years ago on this matter and that I have

taken steps to bring all the parties together. I hope to make an announcement as to the actual composition of the committee in a few days' time.

SUDBURY RATING COMMITTEE (STAFF).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health to what extend the Sudbury, Suffolk, Rating Committee, are doing work for the Health Department Valuation Committee; whether he is aware that the Sudbury Committee pay some of their young clerks 13s. per week; whether this authority has a valuation officer; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I have made inquiries, but I cannot find that there is a Departmental valuation committee such as is referred to. I am informed that the only person employed by the rating committee is a clerk who is employed at a salary of £35 per annum on a part-time basis. The answer to the third part of the Question is in the negative. The matter is not one in which I have any authority to intervene.

DAMAGED PREMISES (TENANTS' RIGHTS).

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at present a tenant who leave premises damaged by aid-raids, while the local authority carries out the necessary repairs, has no right of reoccupation of those premises when the repairs are completed; and will he take steps to remedy this flaw in the legislation covering the rights of tenants?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 1 (6) of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941, which provides that the Court may grant possession to the landlord of a house rendered unfit by war-damage only after three months have elapsed since the property was rendered fit and during the whole of which period the tenant has not been in occupation and has paid no rent.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now received


Treasury sanction to apply the principles of the Determination of Needs Act to awards of need pensions to parents; when the new scales will be put into operation; and what steps are being taken to acquaint those affected by the amended basis of awards?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on nth September, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Pensions, whether he has now obtained Treasury sanction for the payment of home treatment allowances at the full rate for the first two weeks of treatment in cases where treatment continues beyond that period?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to award of pensions for death or disablement of members of the Forces resulting from accidents whilst off duty or on leave, and in respect of death or disablement resulting from disease regarded as constitutional, of which there was no evidence at time of embodiment in the Forces or prior to it?

Sir W. Womersley: The subject of death or disablement of members of the Armed Forces resulting from accidents whilst off duty or on leave is still under consideration. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 3rd July, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Pensions what rate of compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme is paid to a gainfully employed single woman in the event of her losing an arm owing to enemy action while employed in a Government factory; and what rate of compensation would be paid to a single man under the scheme in the same event?

Sir W. Womersley: The rate of the life pension which would be awarded to a

gainfully occupied single woman under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme in respect of the loss of an arm as a result of a war injury would vary from 12s. 1d. to 19s. 4d. a week according to site of amputation and whether the right or left arm was involved. The corresponding rates for a single man would be from 17s. 1d. to 27s. 4d. a week.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. Friend of the opinion that this State differentiation in the payment of men and women is likely to encourage women to volunteer for work in factories?

Sir W. Womersley: I stated the case very fully in the recent Debate in the House, which lasted a whole day, and I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the variation in the rates paid to men and women is much too wide, and will he not reconsider the matter, because there is no justification for this great disparity?

Sir W. Womersley: My answer is exactly what I said before. I stated the case fully on that occasion, and I have nothing more to add.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inform the House as to the difference in amounts between the pension of 100 per cent. down to 5 per cent. paid to members of the Armed Forces who suffered disability in the 1914–18 war and those who suffer the same percentage disability in the present conflict; and will he also give the reason for the difference?

Sir W. Womersley: The difference between the present rate of pension for a private soldier and that payable under the Royal Warrant of 6th December, 1919, varies proportionately to the degree of disablement from 5s. 10d. a week in the case of 100 per cent. down to 1s. 2d. a week in the case of 20 per cent. Pension is not payable for disablement below 20 per cent., which is compensated by a gratuity, or an allowance for a limited period, or a combination of the two. The reason for the difference between the rates laid down in 1919 for great war cases and the new war rates is that the former were related to a higher cost of living figure.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the disappointment in many homes, and the


general feeling against the practice held by large numbers of people in the country, he will now take the necessary steps to abolish the application of the means test to the parents of those who lose their lives in the country's cause, when such parents make a claim for pension?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Bromwich (Captain Dugdale) on 26th June, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continuance of the means test in relation to this matter is causing considerable discontent and that hon. Members were informed some time ago that it was the intention and, indeed, the decision of the Government to abolish the means test? Why is it being continued in this form?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. There is no such thing as a means test—[Interruption.] I have adopted the provisions laid down by Parliament for dealing with the question of need, and what I have done has been in accordance with what the House has ruled.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consult with the Assistance Board with a view to arranging that service pensions to dependants granted under the term of Royal Warrant to persons receiving grants from the Board are disregarded in assessing the allowances from the Board?

Sir W. Womersley: I am consulting with the Assistance Board to see whether there is any matter requiring discussion between the two Departments.

Miss Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that somewhat queer reply—[Interruption].

Sir W. Womersley: There are more things queer than the reply.

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the increasing cost of living, he will give sympathetic consideration to the position of the pensioners and war widows of the war of 1914–18, and increase their pensions accordingly?

Sir W. Womersley: The rates in question are related to a cost-of-living figure in excess of that now obtaining and there are accordingly no grounds for any increase at present.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the disappointment caused by his decision not to set up regional appeal tribunals till after the war, and the apprehension of those involved that this will lead to overwhelming arrears; and whether he will reconsider the matter with a view to the immediate establishment of the necessary local or regional machinery?

Sir W. Womersley: I have nothing to add to the statements I made on this subject in the course of the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on 16th July and again during the Debate in Committee of Supply on the vote of the Ministry on 31st July, when I explained why a general system of appeals to independent pensions appeal tribunals would be impracticable at the present time.

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand from the Minister that he is making no progress with his colleagues in the Government in giving effect to his own desire to have these tribunals set up?

Sir W. Womersley: I have been awaiting the report of the Committee dealing with the question of the supply of doctors, and I have been in consultation with my Advisory Committee on other matters relating to this. I am not losing any time in dealing with it.

Mr. Shinwell: Does this mean that the Minister will have something to add at a later date?

Sir W. Womersley: I have already stated that I am in favour of appeal tribunals. For one thing, they would take the responsibility off my shoulders, and would save many Questions in the House.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up this matter, as there is growing feeling in the country on the subject?

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Minister consider carefully setting up some machinery in Scotland, as there is a feeling that under the present arrangements the distance is rather great?

Sir W. Womersley: I have asked the Was Pensions Committee in Scotland to investigate every case of complaint, and report to me. I am certain that I could not do anything better than that.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has formulated his promised proposals for augmenting the modified pensions granted to widows under the Great War Royal Warrants?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. I have been authorised to make additional grants to these widows under the same conditions as would appertain if they were eligible for supplementary pension under Section 9 of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940.

POLICE PENSIONERS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that police pensioners who have returned to the service for the duration of the war have not been granted the cost-of-living bonus; and whether he will make arrangements for the same cost-of-living bonus to be paid as is paid to other grades of the police?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Re-engaged police pensioners continue to receive their pensions in addition to their pay, and in these circumstances I have not felt justified in recommending police authorities to grant them the supplementary allowances payable to the regular police.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that police officers who have been retained in the service after the completion of full service have not been granted the cost-of-living bonus; and will he make arrangements for the cost-of-living bonus to be paid?

Mr. Morrison: The point which my hon. Friend has in mind is that when supplementary allowances were granted, an allowance of 12½ per cent. which had been previously granted to certain officers was reduced by the amount of the new supplementary allowances. The 12½ per cent. had been payable to men who but for the war would have been entitled to retire on pension at the maximum rate and had been granted for the purpose of reducing

the inequality between their position and that of re-engaged pensioners who receive their pension as well as their pay. When this inequality was mitigated by the grant of supplementary allowances there was no justification for giving these retained men both the supplementary allowance and the allowance of 12½ per cent.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for the 1914–1919 war service in the Armed Forces to count as approved police service, in the same way that other Government Departments and other concerns have, or allow the ex-service men who joined the Force between June, 1919, and August, 1921, whose conditions of service were altered under the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, extending their period of service from 26 years to 30 years, to qualify for a full pension at 26 years?

Mr. Morrison: I am advised that the effect of the relevant enactments is that war service in the Armed Forces during the last war counts as approved police service for pension purposes. As regards the second part of the Question, under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the 30-year scale of ordinary pensions applies to all men who joined a police force on or after 1st July, 1919, and I have no power to waive this statutory provision.

Mr. Smith: There are some reasonable grievances arising out of these Questions. Will my right hon. Friend undertake personally to meet the Police Federation in order to go into these matters?

Mr. Morrison: The Police Federation are in regular contact with the Home Office. I have met them already on a number of points, and, of course, I shall be prepared to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion; but there is existing contact between the Police Federation and the Department.

Mr. Smith: That is so, but in view of the reasonable grievances and of the contribution which these men have made to the services of the State, will my right hon. Friend himself be prepared to meet the Police Federation on these questions?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that, but I must look up how far the points have been discussed. I do not, however, accept the view that these are reasonable grievances.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation during the next Session to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Police Widows' Pensions?

Mr. Morrison: The Committee's recommendation is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the prospects of legislation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that before any legislation is introduced there will be the maximum consultations with the Police Federation?

Mr. Morrison: The report is already before the Police Federation for their observations.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

AUXILIARY LABOUR.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any figures showing what assistance farmers have recently received from the military, from schools or from any other source of auxiliary labour supply?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The detailed arrangements for the employment of soldiers, schoolchildren and other forms of auxiliary labour have been made locally, and precise figures are not available. A very considerable amount of assistance has been forthcoming from these sources, however, and I am grateful to the many thousands of workers who have come forward, and to the school authorities, Commanding Officers and others concerned for their ready co-operation.

FARMERS' SONS (MILITARY EXEMPTION).

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the feeling prevalent in the industry that a certain percentage of farmers' sons have obtained Army exemption, although not previously engaged on agricultural work; and whether he will take measures to prevent a continuance of this practice?

Mr. Hudson: It is certainly generally accepted that men of military age who are not genuine agriculturists must not be allowed to shelter in agriculture. County war agricultural executive committees

already have instructions to recommend the calling-up of such men. If the hon. Member knows of any individual cases, I shall be glad to have them investigated.

DISPOSSESSED FARMERS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the large number of farmers being dispossessed of their farms and dwellings on the ground of inefficient husbandry, he can state that no farmer is dispossessed if his failure to farm efficiently is due to inability to afford the necessary equipment; whether the farmer dispossessed has any right of appeal to a judicial authority; and what steps, if any, are taken to re-absorb the dispossessed farmers in useful agricultural work?

Mr. Hudson: No farmer is dispossessed solely on account of his inability to afford the necessary equipment. There is no right of appeal to judicial authority, but each case of intended dispossession is dealt with in accordance with the procedure explained in the Reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on nth September. In certain instances where the Executive Committee has taken possession and is farming the land the previous occupier has been retained in the Committee's employment, but in any other case there should be no difficulty in obtaining employment elsewhere on agricultural work which he is competent and willing to undertake.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first part of his answer completely evades the first part of my Question, which asked "whether, in view of the large number of farmers being dispossessed of their farms and dwellings on the ground of inefficient husbandry, he can state that no farmer is dispossessed if his failure to farm efficiently is due to inability to afford the necessary equipment''? That Question was not answered.

Mr. Hudson: On the contrary, I answered it. Either the hon. Member did not hear me, for which I apologise, or he did not pay attention. In my first sentence, I said "No farmer is dispossessed solely on account of his inability to afford the necessary equipment." That is the most specific answer it is possible to give.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he says that no farmer is dispossessed solely on account of his failure to afford the necessary equipment? I did not suggest he could be dispossessed solely on that ground, because inefficient husbandry must accompany it.

Mr. Hudson: That is the question which I answered.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in many cases, where tenacies are terminated by him on the ground of bad husbandry, the landlords, having paid no compensation for disturbance, are able to re-let to approved tenants at increased rentals; that the new rentals are often substantially higher than the average for existing tenancies of similar farms in the district; and whether he will take steps to prevent landlords from obtaining undue advantage from his intervention under emergency powers?

Mr. Hudson: I have no information which would bear out the statements in the first and second parts of the Question.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the county war agricultural executive committees in order to test the accuracy of my assertions?

Mr. Hudson: I think it would be best if my hon. Friend would let me have any cases he has in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: Does not all this trouble arise because the farmers in England and Scotland do not own their farms?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. I think it is the other way round. One of the main difficulculties at the present time is the fact that such a large number of farmers in England and Wales bought their farms after the last war and in the interval have been short of capital for that reason.

CALLING-UP NOTICES (DEFERMENT).

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is taking every step in his power to prevent the proposed call-up, on 1st October, of 10,000 farmworkers, whose presence is urgently required on the land for ploughing and other purposes?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend will now have seen the recent announcement that the proposed call-up has been deferred until after the end of November.

Sir L. Lyle: Has this matter been considered by the War Cabinet, and further, how is it possible for any industry, whether agriculture or any other, to satisfy the demands made every day by Ministers for greater output if they have not the necessary labour?

Mr. Hudson: The decision was a decision of the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the decision is deferred until November, does not the Minister see that next year we shall have to consider this matter? From where will he produce the farm workers?

Mr. Hudson: There will be an opportunity to consider the matter again before the end of November.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

"DAILY WORKER."

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolution carried by the Executive Committee of the Mineworkers' Federation, asking that the "Daily Worker" be allowed to be published and circulated, a copy of which has been sent to him; and will he state his intentions on the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, but I have nothing to add on this subject to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) on 24th July last.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement was made some 10 weeks ago? Has he any reason to think that the Communist party is not genuinely behind our war effort now, and is it not better to have a 100 per cent. movement forward for the prosecution of the war and to allow then to publish this paper?

Mr. Morrison: I stated at the time, and I can only reiterate it now, that the view of the Government is that the Communist party is not loyal to this country.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Mineworkers' Federation prefer to think otherwise? Has he made up his mind now to defy the decision of the Mineworkers' Federation?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know what constitutional doctrine my hon. Friend is advancing, but he had better think about it before pursuing it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister expressing the opinion that the friends of Hitler were loyal to this country? Is it not the case that there is no legal reason why the "Daily Worker" should be suppressed at the present time?

GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether there is any means by which a German or Austrian refugee from Nazi oppression, whose registration certificate has not been endorsed to that effect, may obtain such an endorsement on his certificate?

Mr. H. Morrison: Any German or Austrian who claims to be a refugee from Nazi oppression and whose certificate is not so endorsed may submit an application to the Home Office, and any such application will be considered.

ALIENS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are a number of Germans and Austrians, not interned, who desire to apply for the alteration of their present classification under Category B; and whether there is any procedure for making such application?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I do not think the numbers are large, but I should certainly be prepared to consider an application from any such person to be released from the special restrictions imposed by Articles 6A and 9A of the Aliens Order. I should, however, like to make it clear that in many cases these restrictions were deliberately imposed upon the release of the person concerned from internment, and it is unlikely that I should feel myself able to remove the restrictions in cases of this kind.

Commander King-Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that a friendly alien may not own or have access to a bicycle, while a British-born wife of such an alien may own a bicycle, husband and wife, in such circumstances, are permitted by the police to travel on a tandem bicycle; and, if not, will he consider amending the regulations

in order to permit a friendly alien, married to a British-born wife, to share his wife's machine?

Mr. Morrison: The fact that British-born wives of aliens have been exempted from the requirement that aliens must get a police permit for the possession of vehicles does not imply that it would be equally safe to exempt all aliens who have married British-born women. It is open to any alien to apply to the police for a permit, but there is a clear distinction between granting permits in individual cases where the police are satisfied that there is a case for such a concession and granting a general exemption to a whole class of aliens including persons to whom permission would be refused if the case came up for individual scrutiny.

INTERNMENT CAMP, ISLE OK MAN (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement in regard to the escape of the three interned men in the Isle of Man, and the subsequent disturbances that took place in the internment camp?

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make to the House in regard to the recent disturbances in Peel Camp, Isle of Man?

Mr. H. Morrison: I will, with Mr. Speaker's permission, make a statement at the end of Questions in answer to these Questions.

Later—

Mr. H. Morrison: During the night of 17th September, three of the persons detained in pursuance of Defence Regulation 18B in Peveril Camp in the Isle of Man effected their escape by tunnelling from the basement of one of the houses under the barbed wire fence. The men were recaptured by a naval patrol which found them in an open fishing boat off the coast of the island and brought back to the camp at about 6.30 p.m. on the evening of Saturday, 20th September. They were lodged in the detention cells and are being prosecuted before the Manx courts on charges connected with the theft of the boat. When these charges have been disposed of I propose to transfer them to a prison on the mainland, where they will be detained under closer supervision.
The recapture of these men and the manner in which they were dealt with on


their return to the camp was the immediate occasion of the disturbance. It was not possible to conduct the prisoners to the detention cells without exposing them to the view of other persons detained in the camp, and a number of these persons made a demonstration of welcome. The officer-in-charge of the camp refused an application of some of the inmates that a meal should be sent to them from the camp. These men had been given a meal on the patrol boat, but this was not known to the men in the camp, and a story was spread that the three men were being starved. These circumstances appear to have caused a feeling of resentment, and after dark this found expression in a considerable amount of shouting and stone-throwing at buildings in the vicinity of the camp. The extent of the disorder has been exaggerated in many of the published accounts. No assault was directed against any individual, and although damage was caused to windows, only two persons were very slightly injured. The Commandant of the internment camps on the island was summoned and on his arrival he sent for the camp leader, warned him of the seriousness of what had occurred and made it plain that the disorder must cease immediately and complete silence be maintained for at least an hour before he would listen to any representations which the. men might wish to make through their leaders. Complete quiet was at once restored, and after the lapse of an hour and a quarter he met the group leaders, who told him that the demonstration was due to resentment aroused by the treatment accorded to the recaptured men. The Commandant explained that the men in question were, in fact, being given a meal, and sent the group leaders back to the camp with another warning against any further disorder. The rest of the night passed without incident.
On the following day my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who happened to be on an official visit to the island, when making a round of the camp was followed by a group of the inmates, who made abusive remarks, though no violence was offered to him. Since that date there has been no disorder in the camp, and there is no foundation whatever for published statements alleging further riots and drunken brawls. Nevertheless, I cannot but take a serious view of the lack of good order and discipline

evidenced by these occurrences. Persons detained under Defence Regulation I8B are detained for preventive and not for punitive purposes, and it has been the aim of the administration, in accordance with the wishes expressed from more than one quarter of the House, to make the conditions of detention as little irksome as possible. But it is an essential condition of the greater freedom of movement and association in an internment camp that the persons detained should themselves undertake a large measure of responsibility for the maintenance of good order and discipline. This principle of self-government is that on which the administration of all our internment camps is based.
The recent disorders were limited to a section of the camp population, and while, owing to the darkness, it has not been possible to identify the ringleaders with certainty, I have already ordered the removal to a prison of a number of persons likely to cause trouble in the camp, and I shall not hesitate to use this measure freely. Indeed, if any class of persons abuse the privileges I have indicated, the alternative must be confinement in prison establishments. The immediate necessity is to restore a sense of discipline in the camp and to take effective steps to prevent any repetition of these disorders. Hitherto the inmates have been subject to the control of military personnel, who are not by their experience and training accustomed to deal with disorders by unruly mobs. I have accordingly decided to reinforce the military personnel by a detachment of Metropolitan police, who have already arrived in the island and will be available to assist in the maintenance of good order and discipline in this camp. In addition, I have carefully considered the question whether any of the privileges enjoyed by the inmates of the camp should be withdrawn because of the misbehaviour of those of them who took part in the disorder. As I have explained, it has not been possible to identify these persons with certainty, and there are objections to the imposition of a collective punishment on a whole community for the misbehaviour of only a section. Nevertheless, the disorder cannot pass unnoticed, and I have directed that the issue of permits for visits by relatives and friends to this camp shall be suspended for a period of


four weeks from the date of the disorder and that for a similar period certain amenities, such as visits to the cinema and concerts, shall be withdrawn.
These measures will, I hope, be effective in securing the maintenance of that standard of discipline and good order which is essential. I can, I am sure, rely on the House to support me in any further measures of a more drastic character which I may consider necessary.

Mr. Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the kind of implements which the men used for the purpose of digging the tunnel and as to where they got them from?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be certain, but I think that they may be garden tools which they would have been using in the course of their work.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Are not a large proportion of the people interned at this camp Irish Republicans, and should they not be segregated from the others?

Mr. Morrison: There are some Irish Republicans. I cannot give the number on the spot, but even Irish Republicans are of varying degrees of temper and temperament. We did exercise discrimination as to who should be there and who should be elsewhere, and we will take that into account in considering the persons to be transferred to prison.

Sir W. Davison: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the statement in the Press this morning that prior to these riots many thousands of bottles of beer were sent to the camp and that they could get as much beer as they pleased?

Mr. Morrison: They do not get as much beer as they please; I do not think anybody does nowadays. I am bound to say that the published accounts have in many cases been very exaggerated and sometimes a little inventive. Therefore, the House should allow for a little romanticism in these stories.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the seriousness of these reports, can my right hon. Friend take any steps to deprecate or to prevent in future exaggerated statements of this character appearing in the Press?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that that is a matter in which I can very well

plead security as a reason for interfering with the Press. These are little difficulties which we have to put up with and explain as we go along, and I do not think I can do more than I have done.

Mr. Garro Jones: My right hon. Friend spoke of the prosecution of those who escaped, for the offence of stealing a boat; is there not also an offence of attempting to escape, and will they be put on trial for that?

Mr. Morrison: That can be considered, but as I have power to transfer them to prison under the Defence Regulations, I doubt whether it is worth while to proceed with a prosecution

Mr. A. Bevan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the House will support him in any steps he thinks necessary to prevent a recurrence of these disorders? As he has said that he will not inflict punishment on those people who were not concerned in the disorders, does that not contradict the further statement that he has imposed disabilities on other members of the camp? Will he see that those persons who appear to be very fond of manual labour are given a little work to do?

Mr. Morrison: I am anxious to do that, and I am very glad to know that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend. I think that he has rather confused punishment with the temporary withdrawal of certain privileges which were given them. While I adhere to the doctrine that I do not want to punish a community for what some have done, nevertheless I think I am entitled to say to that community that it must make an effort to maintain its collective conduct if it is to enjoy privileges which I have, very largely at the wish of the House, granted to them.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that these persons have not in fact broken the law and are therefore not to be punished, and has said also that he has withdrawn from all members of the camp certain privileges, has he not in fact inflicted punishment on innocent persons? Is not that a contradiction?

Mr. Morrison: Not at all. My hon. Friend has made the contradiction himself, because he is confusing punishment with the withdrawal of privileges which I was under no obligation to grant but which I did grant on grounds of amenity and humanity. If any establishment


collectively misbehaves itself, and I cannot sort out which is which, I have a right, while I ought not to punish indiscriminately, to mark my displeasure by the withdrawal temporarily of certain privileges.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the tendentious Press statements, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider lifting the ban on the "Daily Worker"?

SHELTERS, FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the correspondence between the Fife County Council and the Scottish technical adviser to the Ministry of Home Security on the subject of air-raid shelters in Fife; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, it relates to what is essentially a matter of priorities in relation to labour supply, and the hon. Member will have received the explanation sent him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Gallacher: I have received the explanation, but is the Minister aware that it will be considered unsatisfactory by the Fife County Council? Is he further aware that the first air attack in this country was made upon this area? In view of the fact that it may be subjected to widespread attacks in the future, will he not reconsider the category of this area and carry on with the building of shelters?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but under existing circumstances, with restricted labour supply and, to some extent, restricted supplies of materials, there must be priorities. I am afraid that if I did as my hon. Friend wishes, it would involve other priorities being brought forward which would involve us in great difficulties in labour supply.

FIRE SERVICE.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that, under the reorganisation scheme, fair treatment will be meted out to the part-time retained firemen who have protected the less populous areas for many years?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is certainly my intention.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONERS.

Sir W. Allen: asked the Home Secretary whether the pensions and allowances announced for widows and orphans of the police force will also include the widows and orphans of the old Royal Irish Constabulary, who performed their duties under successive British Governments; and will he also take into consideration the low pensions of old members of the Royal Irish Constabulary now suffering great hardship owing to increased cost of living, with the view to giving them an increase to their pensions?

Mr. H. Horrison: No announcement has yet been made about any Government proposals on this subject, but my hon. and gallant Friend has no doubt in mind the recommendations of a recent Departmental Committee which reviewed the provision made since 1918 for pensions and allowances for widows and orphans of members of police forces in Great Britain. The Committee's proposals do not affect any earlier pensions. The pensions payable as a result of service in the Royal Irish Constabulary were increased by the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, and it has been stated by successive Governments that they cannot contemplate legislation to amend the Pensions (Increase) Acts and that Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners cannot be treated differently from other persons who are within the scope of those Acts.

Sir W. Allen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the old pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary were engaged in a service very different from any other, and that they have had a very strenuous time? Will he reconsider the position of these old men who are gradually dying off in penury and misery?

Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is exaggerating the issue. I am afraid I cannot undertake to reconsider the matter, because I am perfectly certain if I did, I should have a whole series of repercussions from other Departments.

LICENSED TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the effectiveness of the State Management Scheme


in assisting to prevent drunkenness in the Carlisle and Gretna districts which caused the scheme to be established in 1916; and whether he will consider extending the scheme to meet similar conditions now?

Mr. H. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the conditions which obtained in certain areas during the last war the scheme of State management was one of the most important and effective measures adopted to check the widespread evils caused by excessive drinking. Conditions to-day are very different from those which obtained in 1916, but I fully recognise the importance to the war effort of checking any tendency to excessive drinking, and the position up and down the country is being closely watched.

MILK IN SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Education how many schools are now operating the Milk in Schools Scheme as compared with a year ago?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I am unable to give the information in terms of the number of schools operating the Scheme. In May, 1941, however, the number of public elementary school children in England and Wales receiving milk under the Scheme was 2,700,000 compared with approximately 2,100,000 in March, 1940. Including schools other than public elementary schools, it is estimated that in May, 1941, nearly 3,000,000 children were taking milk in school under the Scheme. A new return is being called for in October for both elementary and secondary schools, and I will send my hon. Friend the figures.

Dr. Summerskill: Can my hon. Friend say whether his Department recommend local education authorities to supply pasteurised milk only?

Mr. Ede: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SURTAX.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is

aware that Surtax payers who have made their returns for Surtax for the year 1940–41 have subsequently received an intimation from the Commissioners of Income Tax pointing out that in making returns for Surtax the amount returnable is not the amount of dividend; plus the tax deducted therefrom, which in the year in question was at the rate of 7s. 6d. in the £, as shown on the counterfoils of the relevant dividend warrants, but that the amount of the return should be the gross amount appropriate to the new rate of 8s. 6d. in the £ imposed by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, namely, the amounts obtained by adding to the net amounts received 17–23rds thereof; and whether steps will be taken in future to see that taxation is not dated back so as to include amounts which were not included or payable at the time when the dividends in question were received?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The intimation to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, an intimation of the requirements of the law. The law provides in Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1930, that where Income Tax has been deducted by reference to a standard rate greater or less than the standard rate for the year in which the dividend becomes due, the net amount received is to be deemed to represent income of such an amount as would, after deduction of tax by reference to the standard rate for the year, be equal to the net amount received. This rule, which was laid down by Parliament in order to simplify the ascertainment of gross income, operates when the rate of tax falls as well as when the rate rises and it operates in relation to claims to repayment of tax as well as to the computation of income for Surtax purposes. I do not think that the rule is inequitable, for it links the rate of tax to be added to the net dividend to the rate of tax payable by the company for the year in which the dividend falls due, and I should not feel justified in accepting any suggestion that it should be altered.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very heavy work involved in making these returns in respect of income which has never been received by the taxpayer, and does he realise the additional work and irritation caused by having to add on 17–23rds to the items already sent in? Although


Parliament passed this provision, I do not think they were aware that all the returns would have to be made again.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING (BANK DEPOSITS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement making it clear to the public that, if they are not willing to lend their money free of all interest to the Government, the next most patriotic thing to do is to put it on deposit at the bank and leave it there so that the Government may in turn, to the advantage of the community, borrow it from the banks at one per cent. instead of paying a higher rate on War Loan?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) on 9th September.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is more advantageous to the Government to borrow money at three per cent. than at one per cent.?

PHARMACY AND MEDICINES ACT.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that one trading concern has declared that the savings effected by the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties under the Pharmacy and Medicines Act will be passed on to the public; and can he say if this is being done by the trade in general and, if not, what steps will he take to have attention drawn to it?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the answer is also in the affirmative so far as I am aware, but if, in a particular case, my hon. Friend has information to the contrary, I would suggest that it might be possible to proceed under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts, 1939 and 1941.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can proceed under that Act?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will see me, and I will endeavour to explain it.

SPAIN (UNITED STATES OIL SHIPMENTS).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether the permits recently given by the United States Government to export oil to Spain were granted after consultation with, and with the approval of His Majesty's Government?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): No special consultation was required, as the United States authorities were aware that navicerts had been granted for these shipments. Navicerts are, of course, granted only within the limits of the agreement regulating imports of petroleum and petroleum products into Spain.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it not the custom of the United States Government to consult our Government before granting such permits?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that regular consultation is necessary, since in any case the shipments would not be able to sail unless they were covered by navicerts.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the stocks of oil in Spain are not larger than those contemplated in our plans?

Mr. Foot: Yes, Sir.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production what steps have been taken to provide work at an aircraft factory, the name of which has been given to him, with a view to preventing unemployment during the period involving a change-over from one type of machine to another and whether he can give an assurance that effective proposals have been put forward and accepted for this purpose?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): Arrangements have been made for additional work to be made available to the factory during the period of change over and this work has been accepted by the firm. It is not practicable, however, wholly to fill the gap and some labour has been withdrawn for employment elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WINE IMPORTS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that ships have left Spain, Portugal, South Africa and Australia for this country with empty cargo space which could have been occupied by wine; and whether he will arrange for import licences for wine to be available in future similar circumstances, in view of the small stocks in this country?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I am informed by my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport that ships are leaving their ports of departure loaded down to the marks, ample supplies of priority goods being available in the countries named. While I shall be glad to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, its adoption would in all probability lead to the exclusion of more valuable cargo.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that in no case have ships left these ports with empty space?

Major Lloyd George: I learn that is the result of the inquiry, as stated in the answer.

POULTRY, EIRE.

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department intends to import poultry from Eire; and, if so, to what value and under what system of control and distribution?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

FOOD SUBSTITUTES.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether his attention has been called to recent prosecutions of vendors of food substitutes; and whether he will consider the imposition upon vendors of such substitutes of an obligation to disclose on each packet sold the precise nature and composition of the article?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part, my Noble Friend is now considering the

action which can best be taken to protect the public in respect of the manufacture and sale of "food substitutes."

EGGS (INVALIDS).

Mrs. Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is to be any system of priorities in the distribution of eggs to invalids, especially in the type of case of which the Ministry has been given information by the hon. Member for Bodmin?

Major Lloyd George: Arrangements have been made for hospitals to obtain additional supplies of eggs in cases in which the normal distribution does not provide them with sufficient for the treatment of certain classes of patient. A priority scheme for general application has not yet been found feasible in view of the limited supplies of eggs at present available, but the matter is under consideration at the present time.

BLACK MARKET.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made at the Old Bailey against William Charles Thomas of stealing a large quantity of sugar, jam and cigarettes and selling them in the black market; whether he has seen the comment made by the Recorder about the matter; and whether he has any statement to make in connection with the black market?

Major Lloyd George: William Charles Thomas was convicted at the Old Bailey on 18th September and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for breaking into a factory and stealing a large quantity of sugar, jam and cigarettes. I have seen the comments made by the Recorder on his conduct. I can assure my hon. Friend that my Noble Friend is making every effort to put an end to the black market and he appreciates the serious attitude which the courts are now adopting towards offences of this character.

Mr. Thorne: Are we going to keep on chasing this kind of fellow?

MIDDLE EAST WAR ORGANISATION.

Sir Percy Harris: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of State whether he


has any statement to make on the organisation which he has set up in the Middle East?

The Minister of State (Mr. Lyttelton): First there is the Middle Eastern War Council under my chairmanship. The members of the Council are: His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, the three Commanders-in-Chief and the Intendant General. His Majesty's Ambassador in Baghdad, the High Commissioner of Palestine, the Governor of Cyprus and the Governor of Aden are members and attend when they are able. A representative of the Government of India is shortly to be appointed. This body deals with general matters of policy within the framework laid down by His Majesty's Government.
There are sub-committees of the Middle Eastern War Council, of which the most important is the Sub-Committee on Supply and Transport, again under my chairmanship. This Sub-Committee deals primarily with those communications which are common to the three Services. Under it, is the Middle Eastern Supply Centre, which was set up before my arrival. This body, in close liaison with the Eastern Supply Group at Delhi, is concerned with a wide range of supplies, military and civil, over the whole area.
I have also found it convenient to hold regular meetings with the three Commanders-in-Chief in order to deal with purely Service matters and give them such assistance as I am able within my terms of reference, which, as the House will remember, include the task of relieving the Commanders-in-Chief of as many extraneous responsibilities as possible.
My own office in Cairo is organised on the same lines as the War Cabinet Office in London. I have the assistance of five administrative civil servants; the senior has the grade of Deputy Under-Secretary. There are two senior civil servants, one a Principal Assistant Secretary and one a Counsellor in the Diplomatic Service, and two Principals. The total numbers in my office, including the clerical staff, do not exceed 25. There are two Departments which are associated with my office, one that of the Intendant General and the other is Occupied Enemy Territory administration.
I have also organised a Propaganda Department, which is charged with co-

ordinating the activities of the various propaganda bodies carrying on political warfare and other propaganda in my sphere.
After three months' experience of the working of this machine, which it has been my object to keep as small and as simple as possible, I think I can assure the House that the co-operation between these various bodies is satisfactory, and in particular that the three Commanders-in-Chief and myself work in the greatest harmony and accord in resolving the difficulties which combined operations of the three Services and all arms over a very large political and military field necessarily entail.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Dominions are represented on his Council or in what alternative way they can be consulted?

Mr. Lyttelton: They are not represented on the Council, but I am in touch with them in Cairo.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Doe; my right hon. Friend's new Propaganda Department work in close liaison with the Ministry of Information and in accordance with the directions of the new Executive on Political Warfare?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the forthcoming Business of the House?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill and Second Reading of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill. This is the Bill which was presented yesterday and made available this morning.
Second Sitting Day.—The Adjournment will be moved, and a Debate will take place on what is called Man-Power —a very extensive subject. The Government will have maturely to consider the points on which the House desires information before committing itself to a definite and formal reply, and it may well be that such reply could only be


made in Private Session. The distribution of man-power as between all the various competing interests constitutes a direct and central part of the war effort, to which we do not by any means want to invite the enemy to be a party. To give full and exact details of the distribution of man-power would probably enable him to divine a great deal of our situation.
Third Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Sir P. Harris: If circumstances justify it, and in case it should be found necessary to spy Strangers at the very beginning of this Debate, are we to understand that there will be opportunity for further discussion?

The Prime Minister: I think the best thing would be for the House to discuss the matter and for the Minister to have the advantage of knowing how opinion goes, and then to consider whether it is better to make his reply in public or private.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the House may not have the fullest opportunity of expressing its views in a one day's Debate?

The Prime Minister: There is no reason why, if the House desires to do so, it should not sit a little later.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be more desirable and render the Debate more effective from the standpoint of the Government and the House, to consult through the usual channels and ascertain what are likely to be the demands made on the Government, and then determine whether the Debate should be conducted in public or in secret?

The Prime Minister: Of course, discussions always take place through the usual channels, but I think it would be better that the Debate should take place in the ordinary way, and we will see whether there is any need to go into Private Session.

Mr. Erskine Hill: Would my right hon. Friend give consideration to the representations which have been made through the normal channels for a day for a Debate on Supply?

The Prime Minister: What does my hon. and learned Friend mean by "Supply"?

Mr. Erskine Hill: To discuss questions of Supply—the Ministry of Supply.

The Prime Minister: The word "Supply" has a technical connotation, and I was not quite sure what my hon. and learned Friend meant. I can only say that representations should continue to be made through the normal channels, and the fullest attention will be paid to them.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee of 6th August reported, pursuant to the Instruction of the House [1st October]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed [No. 117].

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: reported from the Select Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House [26th November, 1940.]—That the Co-ordinating Sub-Committee of the Committee had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bill to be immediately considered in Committee.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Considered accordingly in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FOOD DISTRIBUTION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. James Griffiths: In our recent Debate upon the War Situation, representatives of all sides of the House have agreed, in the end, on the same point, namely, that production is the key to victory in this great struggle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), speaking from this Box on Tuesday, said that this was a "workshop war," and, in the discussions which we have upon what we can do to bring this war to a successful conclusion swiftly, we must always come back to the workshops and to the question of how to secure the maximum production for our war effort. There are many aspects of this problem of production, and to-day I desire to initiate a discussion on its not least important aspect, namely, its relation to the amount of food which we are able to secure and to distribute to those engaged in the tasks of production. I think our food policy will have to be, if not re-cast, amended so as to ensure that the food which is available in this country is distributed in accordance with the need of the people for food and not on the basis of what people's pockets can afford.
To-day, I wish to concentrate attention upon the case of those who are generally described as heavy workers. There is con-

siderable difficulty in giving any precise definition of a "heavy worker." I am of opinion that the Ministry of Food, because of these difficulties of discrimination and perhaps of definition, have not altogether satisfied the demand in the country, and I hope that as a result of this Debate and other representations, we shall be able to induce the Ministry to give attention to this very serious problem. During the Recess I made inquiries in my own constituency, which I think is a fair sample of an industrial constituency, and I propose to give the House the result of those inquiries, because I think it will light up the problem. Constituencies differ, and there is a wide variety of industries in the country, but I think that if each of us gives examples from his own constituency, we shall provide the Ministry of Food with a good deal of information which will assist them in framing their policy. In my constituency I have made investigations among the following classes of workers, all of whom, I claim, are engaged in doing heavy work and whose food is inadequate for their jobs: Coal miners, limestone quarrymen—they have been forgotten; though they are not numerous they are a very important group and their work is very heavy—steel and tinplate workers, and railwaymen.
I also made investigations among what is a new class of workers in that area. For the first time many hundreds, even thousands, of women are being drawn into factory work in that area. They have worked all their lives, but this is new work to them, and there is a new physical strain and a new psychological strain upon those women entering factory life for the first time, and there is need for investigation as to whether the food they are receiving at home and at work enables them to meet that strain. Added to the physical and psychological strain of working in a new occupation, there is the strain of long hours spent in travelling. My inquiries show that some of the women, in addition to doing a full day's work in the factory, have to spend 1½ hours a day, or longer, in making the journey, in each direction, to and from work. It is a strain which is considerable.
Let me tell the House first what was revealed by the investigations among coal miners. I took a fair sample of conditions at a coal mine before what is called a canteen was established there. They have a canteen there now, although frankly that


word is a misnomer, because it is really what is called a "tuck shop.". If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food wishes it, I will send him these documents, which are interesting human documents, at the close of the Debate. I asked a reliable friend of mine who is well known in our industrial movement and is known to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines to make as thorough a survey as he could at the colliery where he works, and where he is a responsible officer of the South Wales Miners' Federation. He kindly undertook this task. He writes:
I made investigations amongst 300 miners employed at my colliery, and I found that out of the 300 men, during this week in which I made the investigation, 100 can only bring to work in their tommy boxes plain bread and cheese.
On the average the miner spends eight hours in the pit, working a 7½ hours shift, plus his winding time. For the eight hours that they were doing their job in the pit those 100 men had nothing except plain bread and cheese to eat, and un-sugared tea to drink. I say frankly as one who for many years—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1941.
2. India and Burma (Postponement of Elections) Act, 1941.
3. Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — FOOD DISTRIBUTION.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. J. Griffiths: Perhaps I might repeat the picture of the investigations conducted by my friend. Out of 300 cases during that sample week, 100 men were eating dry bread and cheese and were drinking unsugared tea. The other 200 had various kinds of additions. Some had been able to get jam and some brought butter on one day. A large number were able to

make the bread more palatable with foods like beetroot or lettuce which they had procured from their gardens. In a very short time these additions will have come to an end. Unless steps are taken to deal with this matter in face of the third winter of war, and to provide these men with food adequate to enable them to perform the tasks which the nation asks them to undertake, the work will be physically impossible. Attention must be given to this matter.
I also had investigations made at the steel works in my constituency. I will read what my friend reported to me as a result of his investigations among the hundreds of men employed there:
During my inquiries, a number of my members have informed me that they have lost weight during this summer period. Some have actually lost as much as two stone. It is obvious that these men will not be able to undertake these heavy tasks, exposed to extreme heat, unless the food they are able to get at work is considerably improved on what it is at present.
The extra food which they would be pleased to obtain includes cheese, butter and bacon. Particular stress is laid among the steel workers upon the necessity of giving them more sugar. The old practice, which is still followed to a very large extend indeed, consists in making a home-made drink particularly suitable for these men, who sweat terribly at their work. They have to drink a lot, and sugar is a necessity for them.
By men at the quarry face, where I also made investigations, I was asked to impress upon the Ministry of Food the need for attention being given to these workers. Quarrymen are not allowed supplementary rations of any kind, although strong representations were made to the Ministry of Food some time ago, and I believe have been made continuously since, as well as by Questions in this House. They ought to have been granted the supplementary ration of cheese which was given to miners, but the Ministry of Food has not taken any steps so far in that direction or in giving them canteen facilities. Some of these quarries produce material upon which the steel works depend. Large quantities are required of the product which these men hew out of the mountain side. The men have to work in all kinds of weather, and require more than one change of clothing during their working time. There is very


little stock in hand of their product. If these quarrymen fail to maintain the supply during the coming winter months, the effect will be serious.
I spoke also to some railwaymen. They had experiences last winter which we all hope, for reasons which I need not mention, will not be repeated. It will be wise for us to take every precaution against such experiences. These men said that last winter very many of them, after joining their train, did not return home for 16 or 17 hours. That was not really very exceptional, because often in those circumstances—of which we are all aware— the trains would be held up at some point where there was no opportunity at all of getting any extra food or drink. They urged that, with the strain of these very long hours on the inadequate food which they can bring from home, this winter will be a very severe test of their health. I urge that problem too upon the Ministry. It is difficult to suggest what can be done in those cases; no canteen facilities can meet a problem of that type, for a train may be held up in the heart of a country district. They did, however, make one suggestion, and that was that when men have to work a train to some point several hours away some provision for meals ought to be made at that point. I am sure we all wish to pay a tribute to the work the railwaymen did under blitz conditions. I travel much by train, and I admire them. Surely it ought to be possible for them to be provided with a hot and sustaining meal at the end of a long journey.
I would now like to say a word or two about women workers. I know that provision is being made for hostels, and the canteen arrangements are being pushed forward, but doctors are already calling attention to the rather grim fact that during this war, as during the last, tuberculosis is on the increase—particularly among women workers. This is due to the very big strain which war throws upon them physically and psychologically, and whatever can be done to help them is of the greatest importance. They are the mothers of the nation now, and the mothers of the nation of to-morrow, and whatever can be done to promote their health ought to be done. Women from my own area, for example, who work at a factory many miles away, have to spend an hour and a half travelling to the

factory in the morning. There they do their eight-hour shift and then have to spend another hour and a half travelling back home. The time spent in travelling is a tremendous imposition upon, the women's physique after their eight hours' work at the factory. Generally speaking, whatever kind of meal they have at work, it will be taken roughly half-way through their shift, and the suggestion has been made that some special provision ought to be made whereby women who have to travel could have a meal at the end of the shift, before beginning the exhausting journey homewards. Something ought to be done to help.
These are the investigations I have made and the consultations I have had with colleagues on both sides of the House during the last few days. They give a very fair picture of what is taking place. I do not think it would be denied for a moment that individual rations, plus what people are able to get of unrationed food, do not enable them to take enough from their homes to sustain them and replace lost energy. Some provision, therefore, has to be made. There are only two ways of making such provision, and I will briefly discuss both. First of all, there is the one which is the official policy. It is one which, provided it can be worked successfully, I myself support very fully indeed, as do all my colleagues. It consists of arrangements whereby workers can secure meals at the place where they work, by the extension of canteen facilities. Having looked at the problem very carefully, and having consulted my colleagues in industry on this matter, I admit quite frankly that it is very difficult to meet the situation adequately by an increase in the individual rations, and that the best thing to do is to provide them with hot, sustaining meals at the place of work. We agree that that is the best method. Communal feeding is the remedy, and I want to pay a tribute to the best of the canteens which have been established at pits and factories. They are doing a first-rate job of work, and I hope they will become a permanent feature of our industrial life. I would also like to pay my tribute to what I have seen of the British Restaurants. I hope the Government and the Ministry will push on with the establishment of those restaurants, for they are introducing into the life of many of our industrial villages


something which I hope will never be lost, namely, an opportunity of meeting round a meal and sharing fellowship as well as food. The best of our canteens and British Restaurants are really first-rate and are a credit to all those who are responsible for them.
But now let me ask—Are the canteen facilities adequate? Here for the moment I will only deal with the miners, and I am glad that the Secretary for Mines has been able to find time to come and listen to this Debate. On Tuesday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. T. Smith), he gave particulars of the position in regard to canteen facilities at coal mines, I presume right up to date. This is what he said:
Of the 751 pit-head canteens already in operation or in preparation there are 16 where full meals are at present being provided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1941; col. 454, vol. 374.]
My hon. Friend did not say how many were in operation and how many in preparation, but the full number for the moment is 751, and we may assume that they are all fully in operation. Of the 751 only 16 provide hot meals. The proper way to put it, then, is that there are only 16 canteens at the coal mines of this country; the others ought not to be described as canteens. I will discuss that in a moment.
Let me now try to give a picture of the position. Figures for the number of mines in the country vary, but I think there are approximately 1,900 separate coal mines now at work. Of these 1,900 separate coal mines, employing in round figures 700,000 miners, only 751 have any communal feeding arrangements of any kind. Less than half, therefore, now have such facilities at the beginning of the third winter of war. I do not know what the rate of progress is, but those 751 have taken some months to establish, and there are only 16 of them providing hot meals. Having regard to the calls made upon the miners, each one of the 1,900 pits ought to have a canteen to give the men a hot meal, and I do not think we ought to be satisfied with less. That indicates quite clearly that the provision already made is very inadequate and that the rate of progress is very slow and I urge that it shall be speeded up in every possible way.
To deal now with the other canteens where no hot meals are provided, at the

pit where these investigations were made a canteen of that kind was established the following week. There are 400 men employed in the pit. The size of the building now called the canteen is 38ft. by 16ft. That is not a canteen. It is a shed. Each day, at times suitable to the men, a pie or a sausage roll is provided. That is the menu, and it does not vary. They thought they would like to vary it, and an approach was made to the suppliers that a variance of the menu occasionally would be welcome. They particularly stressed that the men would like sandwiches and were told that the allocation of meat given for this purpose was not adequate for the provision of sandwiches on one or two days per week. These workshop canteens are, if I am correctly informed, allocated supplies of meat for this purpose on the same basis as other catering establishments. I think that it is indefensible that these catering establishments at pits, steel works or wherever they are established, do not get any more than the restaurants in the cities and towns. We know that it is perfectly true; and I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food give the reply times without number, that it is only a pennyworth per meal that is allocated. We also know perfectly well that in this and other big towns those who can afford to go to a restaurant can get breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner every day. I urge that if we are to treat this matter of canteens seriously, we ought to provide workers with more, that there ought to be discrimination for the workers.
I have done three jobs in my life. For 17 years I worked in the pits, for almost as many years I was a trade union officer, and for some time I have been a Member of this House. I can do my job on that ration, but I could not do my job as a collier on it. No one could do it, and we are not going to get the coal on it. After ail, if you get men back to the pits, 10,000 or 20,000, it may not mean any increase in production it inadequate feeding reduces individual output. Individual output is going down. I know the figure, but I will not quote it. The Secretary for Mines will need more men than he has got to make up for inadequate feeding unless some drastic steps are taken. I urge that steps be taken. There are places where it is difficult to establish a canteen. Perhaps a pit or


works are small. I appreciate that it will be difficult in some of these places to find the space at the pit-head to put anything. I remember a case in which half a mountain had to be taken away to enable a playing field to be provided. You may have three or four collieries, maybe a colliery and a steel works. I do not want this matter to be considered in a watertight compartment. Often the best thing may be to provide a canteen which will serve the coal workers and the steel workers side by side. If the problem is looked at in areas where there are steel workers, tin workers and colliers, perhaps the best thing will be to establish a British Restaurant as a canteen near those places, where all these workers can get meals. Wherever canteen facilities can be provided for communal meals, that is what we want.
I admit at once that the giving of individual rations may not be a solution if this other solution is possible. Where canteens cannot be provided, and where these meals cannot be given, the problem has to be met in another way. I want to make a special plea for these heavy workers. They must get more meat, they must get more sugar, and, if it is possible, they must get more bacon. All men I talk to say that they cannot sustain health, and work eight hours in a steel furnace, sweating as they do, scraping the salt off their body at the end of the shifts, with nothing to drink except water and sugared tea, with the kind of food I have described, and with no canteen. In one area I know of no steelworks and no tinplate works which has a canteen of any kind. If any men work hard in this country, it is steel workers and tinplate workers. How they maintain production, when they do, on existing rations, is beyond me. I am satisfied that they should not be asked to go on doing so this winter unless something more is done, and I press for that to be done.
I will not detain the House further, but I think we were perfectly justified, at the approach of this third winter of the war, to urge these things upon the Government, upon the Parliamentary Secretary, upon the Ministry of Food. We have been told in the Press that something is to be done to meet this problem. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably tell us what these steps are. I hope the}' are adequate. I hope they will press on

with canteens, and that these will be canteens where hot meals are provided, that the rate of progress will be expedited and that, where this cannot be done, then the need shall be met by individual rations. There was a phrase used by the Prime Minister to America, when he said:
Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.
I say, for the workers, "Give us the food, and we will do the job."

Professor A. V. Hill: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has a very strong case. He has expressed it with his usual eloquence. My purpose in rising is to make as perfectly clear as I can that scientific opinion on the subject of nutrition is wholly on the side of those who make this plea that special treatment is necessary for heavy workers. No one would think it reasonable that a 20 horse-power car and a seven horse-power car should have the same petrol ration. Nor it is reasonable that a heavy worker, working at a level of 6,000 calories a day, should have the same diet as a sedentary worker of a calory level of 2,500 a day. This argument would not be valid if the heavy worker could make up his diet on un-rationed foods, such as bread and potatoes. In fact, however, if he is to remain healthy, happy and contended, he cannot do so. It is not simply a matter of the energy value of food. It must be supplied to him in the proper form. To suggest that the heavy worker can remain really efficient, happy and healthy on the same diet as the sedentary worker plus a little extra bread is like suggesting that a Rolls-Royce can run on the same petrol as a seven horse-power car with the addition of a little coal. The particular needs of heavy workers are for a very much higher supply of condensed food, such as cheese, in one form or another. A man at the 6,000 calories per diem level, if he is not to have an undue burden placed on his digestive apparatus and consequently develop a distate for food and become inefficient, needs at east one-fifth of his energy in the form of fat. He must have 2½ lbs. of fat, in one form or another, weekly. That is impossible on the present ration. Another reason for the necessity of condensed foods is that in many cases the food must be carried by the worker. The worker cannot carry potatoes or turnips, even if he could stomach them;


he must have something that can be carried in a small bag or in his pocket.
We hear a great deal about vitamins. Let there be no mistake, the scientific people are under no illusion that we can replace energy by vitamins. It is true that a full supply of vitamins is necessary to everyone. There is no doubt about the importance of the discoveries in recent years of the importance of vitamins and protective foods. Only an ignoramus would suggest, however, that vitamins can replace energy in the diet of heavy workers, and only an ignoramus would suggest that we should consider only the ' crude energy value in a diet for a healthy man. There is no doubt that different nations have different dietaries. These are partly due to differences of climate, partly due to long tradition, partly due to custom and training in diet. It is no more sensible to expect the British worker to live on rice and macaroni because an Indian or Italian can do so than it is to expect the dock worker to learn to use a typewriter in a few minutes or a clerk to throw sacks weighing 1½ cwt. over his shoulder. Appetite depends on custom; without appetite, ill-health will set in and the man will become inefficient. Science does not profess to decide how the individual needs of the worker can be met; the practical man, familiar with the trade, must decide that; but there is no doubt that a heavy worker needs special rations just as a high-powered car needs more petrol than a low-powered car; and the science of nutrition must not be invoked to cover up any Ministerial deficiencies by unintelligent uniformity.

Mr. Mort: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill), who dealt with the scientific and theoretical side of this question of the heavy worker. I want to deal with it from the practical side. I am rather disappointed that since the last Debate, when I put the point of view of the heavy steel worker from a practical standpoint, no steps have been taken to meet what I consider a very grave situation. I have no disrespect for theories— in fact, I welcome them. But I worked for 25 years in a steel works. On practical experience during the last war and

on what I know is happening now, I say that if we do not meet the situation in some way there is going to be a serious breakdown in the health of the steel worker. The tinplate worker and the steel worker, working in terrific heat all day, expend more physical energy in eight hours than we do in as many months. Yet there is the stupid system by which we can procure the things which are absolutely imperative for these people if they are to maintain their physical standard. Take the question, referred to by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), of making all these soft drinks —we in Wales call them "small beer." They are absolutely necessary. You cannot work eight hours and just drink water all the time—you will get cramp and a diseased system.
I know it is very difficult to provide canteens in order to supply the steel workers with food. The steel worker is like the soldier: he cannot leave his job. He does not get regular meal hours. I have sat down to breakfast at half past six in the morning, because I knew it would be my only opportunity. I like the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Llanelly. In my own town, if we had a good restaurant where all these workers could go for food that would be a fine solution. I do not think it would be practicable to establish canteens for the tinplate worker and the steel worker in the works. I make a special appeal for extra sugar, and also for extra meat. These men are patriotically doing their job. I remember the time when the Minister of Labour was called the "Dockers' K.C.," and he showed the importance of food for such workers. I hope that the appeals made to-day will benefit my friends who are still in the steel trade. This month there is a letter to the Ministry of Food in the journal of the trade union with which I am connected, making an appeal which I know is sincere. I trust that we shall have some small concession in the direction I have indicated.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I think it will be to the advantage of the House if I now indicate our attitude on the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). Before I come to the specific matters which have been raised, however, it would perhaps not be out of place if I made


a brief reference to the actual situation at this time, particularly as we are at the end of two years of war. This bears on what my hon. Friend has said. Personally, I was very grateful to him for the way in which he put his case.
Until last summer there was no noticeable shortage. Continental supplies were still available, and our shipping losses were not serious compared to what they have since become. Of course, with the collapse of France the position altered. As the Prime Minister indicated to us on Tuesday, the losses were then very much greater and, what was more serious to us, we lost our Continental sources of supply. This has a great bearing on the problem we are discussing to-day. The loss of our Continental sources of supply meant that we were deprived of about four-fifths of our imported bacon, nearly three-quarters of our imported butter, more than two-thirds of our imported eggs, and seven-eighths of our imported condensed milk—all very important items to this country. And, of course, as was pointed out yesterday, our shipping losses were greatly increased. My Noble Friend has indicated that at one time so serious had these losses become that they gave cause for real anxiety at the Ministry of Food. This anxiety was not confined to the secondary products, but, indeed, was even extended to some of the staple commodities, and we had at that particular time to concentrate, to the exclusion of almost everything else, upon building up all those staple commodities to a position that might be considered fairly safe. That inevitably meant less importation of the secondary products. I am glad once more to be able to reassure the House in regard to our position on these staple commodities. We are, in practically every instance, better off, with regard to these staple commodities, than we were not only last year or the year before, but, in some cases, before the war. No one can possibly foresee what the future has in store for us, but whatever the future has in store and whatever our trials may be, we can at least say that at this moment we are in a better position to withstand those trials than we thought possible a few months ago.
We are, therefore, in a position at the moment to concentrate once again upon trying to supply ourselves with those things which we have had to go without for so

long. To be able to make a scheme of fair distribution of the secondary products really workable it is essential that our supplies shall be adequate to that scheme. Thanks to the improved situation in the Atlantic and the very generous assistance that has been extended to us from North America, we are now in a position to deal with this difficult question. The House will remember that just before the Recess I indicated that we would be in a position shortly to reproduce a scheme that would deal with the very difficult question of what are known as the unrationed commodities. I am now in a position to say that a very important extension will, in fact, be introduced in the middle of November, and I have every hope that this scheme will reduce the difficulties, not only of the housewife, but of the canteens about which we have been talking to-day.
With regard to the future, I can only say that, considering that we are at the beginning of the third year of war, and considering the intensity of the attack which has been directed against us, the position is highly satisfactory. The stocks of essentials, as I have indicated, are good but let us not make any mistake about it, these hard-earned stocks must be treated as our insurance. Let no one imagine, good as the position may be, and despite the extremely generous assistance we are getting from North America—assistance, I know, which we shall continue to receive in increasing quantities—that we shall not have to go without a good many of the things to which we had been accustomed before the war. That, of course, is inevitable, but we can say that we are the only belligerent country at the beginning of the third year of war that has increased its rationing—the only one.
On 7th July last we increased our meat ration by 16 per cent. I believe that at that time, or just afterwards, the Germans reduced theirs. We have increased the cheese ration, and in the near future—in November—it will be possible for us to increase both the sugar ration and the fat ration and to maintain them, in the absence of any unpleasant, unforeseen developments, at any rate until March; that being the period when it is considered, owing to the additional strain of black-out and so forth, that it is most important for our people to have them. From 17th November the domestic fat ration will be increased by 25 per cent.,


that is, from eight ounces, at which it is to-day, to 10 ounces. May I say, in passing, that that brings us very nearly to the average usage of these fats before the war? This is due to the arrival of large quantities of lard from America. The sugar ration—that is, the domestic sugar ration—will be increased by 50 per cent.— and thus will rise from eight ounces, as it is now, to 12 ounces.
The dried fruit position is a very much better one, and that will be a substantial supplement to the domestic rations.
I now come to the question which has been the subject of this discussion to-day —that of a supplementary ration for those workers who are engaged in our heavy industries. The House will remember that the policy of the Government has been hitherto to allow the maximum possible rations for all consumers generally rather than to give a supplementary ration to particular classes at the expense of the rest of the community. After very careful examination of all the facts, and after obtaining all the advice that is open to us—and I would like to pay my tribute and to express my gratitude for the help we have received from the Committee which has been expressly delegated by the T.U.C. to help us in all these questions—it is not proposed to alter that policy. This certainly does not mean that we do not accept the need for a supplement to the rations of those men and women who are engaged in this very important work at the present time.
My hon. Friend in his opening remarks referred to the fact of how much we depended upon production and how much production depended upon the workers being adequately fed. I do not quarrel with any of these words. Therefore, we accept the need for a supplement to the rations of certain types of workpeople. My hon. Friend, speaking some days ago in the country, said that, if there was anything extra going, it should be directed to those places where we thought the need was greatest. There is no question whatever where those places are. There is also no question that the added strain of war and the demand for increased production make the dietary requirements of certain workers higher now than they were in peace time. To meet this we have encouraged the setting up of the canteens and British Restaurants as much

as possible, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute he paid to those that have been set up. I myself have had to go to many of them and I am personally very struck with them.
Our aim is to secure that workers should take at least one full meal in the day at their work. A great deal has been done to provide canteens for this; they cover not only workers in factories but among others dockers, and while we must pay a tribute to railwaymen and others I think we ought to recognise the valuable work done by the dockers of this country, who save a great deal of shipping by the speed of their turn-round. Therefore, we were sorry to find that some of these facilities for dockers were extremely poor, but so far as they are concerned over 150 canteens are now available, with 15 mobile canteens in addition. Also, there are 52 in the course of preparation, which makes a very great improvement in the situation as it was a few months ago. There are also canteens for Civil Defence workers, Home Guard, fire brigade and police, and they serve something like 4,000,000 meals a week. There are, of course, school canteens, feeding centres and air-raid shelter canteens, with which I will not deal to-day. There are at this moment, however, something like 15,000 canteens which provide 16,000,000 meals a week, apart from hot beverages. The number of hot beverages per week is about 45,000,000.
My hon. Friend referred to the rate of progress, and I can assure him it can never be too fast for myself. I am glad to say that in the last six months canteens have been appearing at the rate of no per month, and the pace is accelerating. Like so many new things, the pace was slow at the start. British Restaurants took a long time before they caught on, but once they do catch on and people realise their advantage the pace is accelerated. There are now over 1,000 British Restaurants, and I need not tell the House how good they are, because so many hon. Members have seen them and some have had meals in them. These restaurants serve 1,000,000 meals per week, and when you come to the ordinary restaurants, tea shops and cafes, there is the additional figure of 35,000,000 a week. Taking them all together, we estimate that there are something like 12,000,000 meals a day served in this country outside the


home—in other words, off the ordinary ration. There is no doubt at all that these canteens are serving a most important purpose in our national life to-day. My hon. Friend opposite referred to a survey which was made recently—

Mr. J. Griffiths: If I made a survey in any pit, the result would have been the same.

Major Lloyd George: Obviously, if you take small numbers you cannot generalise too much, but I want to refer to a survey which was made the other day, involving 1,000 people. Each had one meal at some place outside their home, and the result was that where they could go outside to have this extra meal the existing scale of rations was sufficient to provide a diet considerably higher than that enjoyed by the same group before the war. I am not saying, however, that that would apply to all cases. The needs of other special classes are receiving our attention as they arise.
For instance, the question of transport drivers on trunk roads is now being considered. These men perform a most useful and important service to this country, and we felt that it was essential to give them special consideration. It was found a short time ago that transport cafes were not aware of the Ministry's regulations on this matter and did not apply for the quantities of food to which they were entitled. Steps have been taken to put that matter right, and with the help of the Ministry of War Transport we intend to make provision for increasing food supplies to a limited number of transport cafes on the main trunk roads, thus ensuring that these workers, especially those connected with night driving, have adequate facilities for obtaining suitable food.
Of all the special provisions that have to be made, one of the most difficult is for mine workers. We have co-operation in this matter from my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, the Miners' Welfare Commission, my hon. Friend opposite and especially from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes), who has given us every possible assistance with this project. With this co-operation, canteens for mine workers are being provided at a rate which very few thought possible when the scheme was suggested. The latest figures I have show that provision

has actually been made for 47 per cent. of miners engaged on mining and that with those under consideration up to last month the figure had risen to 84 per cent. of the total number of miners in this country. I am, however, far from suggesting that provision in all these canteens is adequate. I have heard about canteens which provide only mineral waters, tea and buns. This obviously is not adequate, but now that the principle of the canteen has been accepted our duty is to provide these meals, and we have every intention of encouraging not only facilities but adequate facilities for as many industries of this country as we can. We are aware that there are other needs in other industries. For instance, I am told that in certain pits there are different local needs, and we are prepared to try and meet these needs as they arise. The other difficulty apart from the mine worker is food for the agricultural worker, but from experiments which we have conducted this summer we hope to be able to do something in the light of the experience we have gained.
I have said that our policy is to direct any extra food that is available to those people who, in our opinion, need it most. I cannot at this stage commit myself definitely to precise figures, but I can say that, as long as the present supply situation continues, we hope it will be practicable to allocate to canteens, according to priorities to be decided upon in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, substantially increased quantities of certain foods. Any establishment, whether it be a canteen or anything else, that provides meals for essential workers will be treated in the same way. It is important to say that because, in a place like London, an enormous number of workpeople use the ordinary restaurants and catering establishments for food. I would not be surprised if in London a majority of the workpeople used these establishments.
With regard to the canteens in the first priority category, which will be decided in consultation with my right hon. Friend, I suggest that those establishments would embrace the industries engaged in the heaviest form of labour. In these canteens we hope to double the meat allocation and treble the sugar allocation. For other industrial canteens where the work


is not so heavy, the meat allocation will be increased by 50 per cent. over the existing allocation and the sugar allocation will be doubled. Further, we hope to be in a position to make available increased supplies of bacon and ham, cooking fats, and, if supplies permit, a supply of processed eggs. As for those canteens from which the workers get packed meals—and I think this will meet the points raised by the hon. Member, because it was about men actually at work that he was speaking—if it is possible for us, and I think it is, to arrange for a proper supply of commodities for packing purposes, this should meet the position at those particular places to which the hon. Member referred. For these purposes we have to make a special allocation of preserves and to increase the allocation of butter and margarine. A special feature of our revised arrangements which will be of particular interest to some hon. Members is that we intend, if possible, to increase the amount of the special allowance of sugar that is made to workers in some of the heavy industries. With regard to cheese, it may be possible, in the first priority canteens to increase the present allowance, which is, I think, one-tenth of an ounce a meal. Briefly, those are our proposals. The House knows that there is at the moment no restriction on the supply of tea, and we hope to continue that arrangement. We shall be able to make these improvements without decreasing the allowance to other catering establishments which will not be eligible for preferential treatment. I want to make it clear that the preferential treatment is given only to the two categories, the very heavy and the other industrial workers.
I have dealt with the main point of to-day's Debate, but I would like to say a few words about another section of the community which must not be forgotten. The Debate has been concerned mainly—and quite rightly—with the workers, but we have to think of the future as well as of the present. In my opinion, it would be most lamentable if the war were to lead to malnutrition of our children. My Noble Friend is determined that this shall not happen. Reference has been made to the mothers. I do not need to remind the House that the children of to-day are the ones who will have to reconstruct the country, and we

must see to it that they do not suffer as a result of the war.
I suppose that the task of the Ministry is, primarily to see that this country is fed during the war, but I am glad that we do not restrict our activities to that immediate problem. I hope that many of the things that have been initiated by the Ministry of Food will remain with us after the war is over. It is my opinion that if canteens remain with us after the war, the experiments we are now making will have been well worth while. The National Milk Scheme, which provides free and cheap milk for mothers and children, has completely justified itself; and may I add, in passing, that there has been an enormously increased sale of milk among the workers, which is a very useful addition to the diet. Where there are no feeding facilities in the schools, many children are taking their meals at adjoining British Restaurants; surely, this points the way to further developments. There has recently been correspondence in the Press with regard to school feeding. I do not want to anticipate pronouncements that will have to be made on the subject in the near future, but I can assure the House that the possibility of developing meals in schools is receiving the most urgent and sympathetic consideration of my Noble Friend and. the President of the Board of Education.
I do not want to refer to any other topics to-day. I knew that the House was particularly anxious to have some pronouncement on this matter. If I am asked for details as to time, I shall have to reply that the decisions have been come to and that no time will be lost in putting these proposals into operation. I believe that when the advantages to be obtained from canteens are known, adequate ones will be supplied. Our particular job is to see that there is something in those canteens, and we have every intention of seeing that there is something in them. I very much hope that, as a result of the little extra inducement which we are able to give, there will be a real movement forward. We do not want pseudo-canteens, but places that are adequate to the needs of the industries. Our main purpose is to provide for the people of this country in such a way as to see them through the present crisis, but I am glad to think that we can still find time to deal with things


which, while being essential for the life of the country to-day, will have also a permanent effect on the future.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: We have heard two speeches in the House this week which have given great happiness and a sense of strength to our nation, and confounded or dismayed our enemies. On Tuesday we heard the speech of the Prime Minister, and we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food a speech on the subject of food which, coming at a time when we are entering the third year of the war, is most satisfactory. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right when he says that ours is the only country in Europe which has improved the food situation of its people.
I want my right hon. and gallant Friend to recognise the special position of miners. Much has been said about canteens, and let me say at the outset that I am all for canteens where those canteens provide a full meal. However, as things are at the moment, I have no brief for canteens which merely hand out a pie, a sausage roll, or food of that description. Miners, in Northumberland, desire a full meal when they come out of the pits, and it is no good giving our men a sausage roll. I heard a sausage roll described at a conference as something which is most mysterious. It was said on that occasion that with the first bite you are an inch short of the sausage, and with the next bite you are an inch past it. That is how our men feel about the sausage roll. I strongly support my right hon. and gallant Friend and his Minister in their intention to provide extra meals, meat and sugar and those other commodities which were mentioned, but in the meantime what is the intention until the canteens have been provided? Do the men have to continue to buy these sausages and meat pies? It is true that great progress is being made and much examination is taking place, but it is my firm conviction that canteens providing full meals will not be available for the mining areas during the winter. The winter is a most important part of the year, especially when we consider the severity of the miner's work and his lack of sunshine. Undoubtedly this must have a great effect on output.
I saw a man the cither day who told me that in 15 months he had lost one stone and three-quarters in weight. At a conference he asked a lady who was an expert on the subject if she could recommend any vitamin tablets to make up for his loss of sunshine. I am not an expert on this subject myself, but I think she recommended vitamins A and C. The remarkable thing is that by taking these tablets he has gained half a stone. This is not an isolated case, because two of the four men who work beside him also took the tablets, and gained three pounds within six weeks. I merely put that for ward to show that loss of sunshine during the winter is a very important factor in the life of a miner. In some colliery districts 9,000 to 10,000 pies are being delivered daily. I want to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he thinks it is wise, at a time when we shall be using a small comb to find every man and woman for industry, that we should be employing large numbers of people to make these pies. Does he think it wise that we should be using numbers of motor vehicles and large quantities of petrol to transport these pies over a considerable distance to the mines? Would it not be much more advisable to give an additional pennyworth of rationed food to the miner's household? That would avoid all this labour, and the housewife would be able to provide two extra meals. Such a scheme would go a considerable way towards bridging the gap, and much labour and expense would be saved.
I put that forward as a practical suggestion until such time as we get the canteens. When we have the canteens supplying a full meal I shall be all for them. I wish to goodness people would recognise that miners are not Ishmaels of society and men who come from a class of forgotten beings. They are a body and class of people comparable with any class in any part of the world. They should be treated as such, and should not be given pies for a meal. It might be argued that if extra rations are given to the households the rest of the family will benefit. But that is not so in the case of cheese. Surely what was applicable in the case of cheese should be applicable' in the case of meat. I have made some investigations among miners, women and shipyard workers who are employed in areas where there are no canteens. My investigation has been in only two quarters, the man


and his wife, and the struggle and strain of the womenfolk trying to keep their men going fit and well is almost impossible. I was in the house last week-end of a very fine type of family, a county councillor, a man who is all for winning the war, as anyone with any brains ought to be. On the Sunday they had a bit of meat. On Monday it was cold, and it went. They then had to do tricks with the bone, and with a 1s. 2d. ration you need not boil a bone many times to get all the sustenance in the form of soup that you require.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had another problem recently, so great that it is not solved yet. It is in regard to eggs. They tell you how many you are going to get in October and November. Your principle in regard to eggs is that no one shall have two until everybody has had one, and it is a sound, commendable principle. But I come to London week by week, and I can have my two or three meat meals if I want them. I do not have them, but I could. In the name of goodness, is it right that those who consume from 100 to 300 calories a day should be able to get one or two meat meals while those consuming 800 and doing the heavy work of the nation are unable to get one each day?

Major Lloyd George: I am trying to give to these workers the same facilities as are enjoyed by the hon. Member himself.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman holds one of the most honoured posts in the country. I cannot imagine any man refusing to be Food Minister during wartime, recognising that food is the thing which will maintain our morale and help us to win through by producing the weapons of war that we need. I know the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to do that, but until he is in a position to provide the full meal that I am asking for I am asking that the heavy worker may have his ration where he can take full advantage of it.
There seems to be some trouble at the moment in regard to canteens. The Ministry was going to give priority for certain unrationed goods. People who have tendered for pit canteens have been informed that they are only to have 50 per cent. They were to have 100 per

cent. of biscuits, cake, cocoa, butter, coffee essence, juices, syrups, squashes, starch foods, cornflour, custard powder, blancmange powder, chocolate, sugar and confectionery. Now they are given to understand that the 100 per cent. will only apply to biscuits, cakes, flour, confectionery and starch foods. The right hon. Gentleman ought to look into that, and I daresay he is doing it because representations have been made. Suppose a co-operative society tenders to supply these foods to a canteen against a business firm of equal size and the co-operative society gets the tender. The 50 per cent. that has been withdrawn from this list will have to be made up to the canteen because the society has contracted to supply 100 per cent. The 50 per cent. will have to come out of the stocks of the co-operative society and it can only come from what the members are entitled to in the ordinary way of business. When members go to the society and are not able to get these things, the next logical step is for them to go where they can get them. That may be to the business firm that did not get the tender. If they can get these articles there they may be tempted to register there for rationed goods. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with his unfailing courtesy will look into this matter.
We are all tremendously pleased with what we have heard from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to-day. When at the end of two years of war, when Hitler had expected to win the Battle of the Atlantic and we had lost the Continental sources of supply, and when, thanks to the men in the Navy and Mercantile Marine, and our railway and road transport men, we can hear a statement that we are in a better position than eighteen months ago, we are all tremendously glad. I would emphasise that there are certain workers in the country on whom our life depends, the men who are doing the heavy work providing the raw materials which go to centres of manufacture, where they are turned into the necessary implements of war, and that unless we can give these men the necessary energy through food we shall not accomplish the object we have in mind. My earnest plea to the Minister is to get on with the canteens for providing full meals and until they can be provided to give extra rations to those who need them.

Lieutenant Butcher (Holland-with-Boston): The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who opened the Debate, struck the right note when he said that production was the key to victory. That should be the motto for Government Departments such as the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Supply. There are other Departments, notably the one which engaged the attention of the House yesterday, the Treasury, which would claim that conservation was one of the keys to victory as well, and the Ministry of Food might well approach the subject along that line. Therefore, there was great satisfaction in all quarters of the House at the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Llanelly for the survey which he made and for his references to the hard and heavy workers. The only difficulty is where to define the line between the heavy workers and the light workers, because not only the task on which a man is engaged but the question whether he is accustomed to do it has to be considered. Experts in time and motion study would tell us that more energy can be used by one man in performing a job in the wrong way than by another in doing the same job in the right way.
We have great cause to congratulate ourselves on the circumstances that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was able to outline and on the fact that we are better off or, as he said, better able to withstand the trials that may come to us than we have been before. That is a great achievement of which he and his Noble Friend can be proud and for which the country will be grateful. The increases which he mentioned will be received with great satisfaction throughout the country. My only fear is that in connection with the important changes in unrationed commodities which will take place in the middle of November there will be anticipatory buying during the next six weeks. We do not want there to be a rush on those commodities which may come under the scheme. The increase in fats of 25 per cent. and in sugar of 50 per cent. is interesting, because it will bring the rations for the civilian population close to the Service rations which were published in Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT. The task of fairly

sharing food in war-time is not really one of a contrast between the rich and the poor. The rich, of course, have certain advantages, but the main contrast is between those who are able to feed out off the rations and those who have to feed in. The country doctor and his wife and the farmworker and his wife constitute one section with particular problems, whereas the wealthy club man and the worker at a factory with a good canteen are in a different category, with difficulties less acute.
There must be some closer approximation to equality. That could only be done by the extension of one of two systems—either an extension of the coupon system in which meals eaten out must come off the ration, or the extension of the canteen or restaurant system to all classes of the community in all parts of the country. I think that the Ministry has taken the right point of view. Food produced and prepared in quantity is likely to be better served and will conserve transport, labour and fuel and provide greater variety than is possible by increasing the individual rations. Therefore, I think the Government are wise to push ahead with this policy of communal feeding. The decision to give increased food to these canteens will assist the formation of canteens.
Let me give a brief personal experience of a small business with which I am connected. We decided last winter to establish a canteen for the 60 or 70 people working there. It serves a hot midday meal of two courses for 8d., I think, and it has been well patronised and is popular; but how to provide the meal for the last day in the week has always been a headache for the manageress of that little canteen. She starts off easily on the Monday with butcher's meat, and on Tuesday gets fish. On Wednesday and Thursday conditions are not easy, perhaps, but the greatest problem is how to get the food for Friday within the price limit. The announcement that more food will be available for canteens will in itself assist in bringing more canteens into being.
I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he reviews the problem of the agricultural worker, will not concern himself entirely with the holders of agricultural workers' cards, but will remember also other heavy workers in agricultural districts. A fort-


night ago I was on leave in my constituency and went into a village smithy. As is not unusual, the problems of food and drink were discussed, and I pass this point on to the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that he will be able to do something about it. An agricultural worker, who gets an extra ration of cheese, eats his cheese at mid-day under the hedge. The village blacksmith eats his meat meal at home at mid-day. The agricultural worker comes home later and has his meat meal at about 5 or 5.30, but at that time there is nothing left for the blacksmith to eat save bread and butter or bread and margarine.
I see no way out of the difficulty except by an extension of the system of British Restaurants or canteen feeding, on the widest possible scale. I think we are only on the threshold of bringing this problem into relation with the new developments in our social life that are springing out of this war. Why should not the one restaurant be available for hot meals for all schoolchildren, and at other times for the workers as they leave work? It could also be available in the evening as a place to which a wife and husband who are both at work could go for a meal, instead of having to prepare a meal at home after their day's work.
If that system can be pushed forward, and I believe it can, we shall cover the needs of a large part of the community, although there will still remain the problem of the outlying districts in the agricultural areas. I do not think we can ever get a permanent and perfect solution of that problem, but there are in this country mobile canteens provided, in some cases by America, notably through the generosity of Mr. Henry Ford and his son. These canteens—mobile travelling food vans, I think they are, rather than canteens—go into districts after a raid, when no cooking facilities are available, carrying hot meals in insulated containers. We are not now getting as many raids as we were, and I wonder whether we could not use these travelling food vans to serve outlying districts and works and pits where facilities for obtaining meals are not available at the moment, but on the clear understanding that* if any town does have a heavy raid then, on that day the workers in these outlying districts or pits will not get a visit from the van.
There will be widespread satisfaction with the statement which has been made by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I think the Ministry are working along the right lines, but I hope that in considering the claims, which have been pressed very strongly, and rightly so, for more food for heavy workers, we shall not forget the need for food conservation and above all for the conservation of our shipping resources. Let us not start to be extravagant because we have run into a good patch. Let us imitate the squirrel and store a proportion of our food, so that if we again run into those surprises of war which the Prime Minister has warned us are nearly always unpleasant, we shall have something in the locker; and that if a large amount of shipping is needed for offensive operations over seas we shall have stored here such quantities of food that we shall be able for a time to free the maximum amount of shipping for the transport of Forces and munitions over seas. The promise of a bigger and better Christmas dinner will be welcomed by all, but I am sure that I am interpreting the thoughts and the wishes of the people of this country when I say that they are willing to wait for the normal Christmas dinner until they can eat it later on with the fruits of victory.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: I wish to express my appreciation of the statement which has been made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. It is a matter for satisfaction that in the very difficult times through which we are passing, and have been passing for the past two years, no one in this country is actually going hungry. That is not due entirely to the efforts of the Ministry of Food, although they have played a great part in that respect, for in this connection we must pay a tribute to the Royal Navy and to our Merchant Navy. Whilst it is an established fact that no one is going hungry, and whilst we all appreciate the efforts which have been made to feed our community in these difficult and exceptional times, I feel that something more should be done to sustain the physical energy of the heavy workers. The way to achieve this is by extending the number of canteens and creating the psychology of communal feeding in the workshops, among the miners and among our heavy industrial workers.


During the recent recess I, in common with other hon. Members, have had the privilege of visiting canteens at aircraft factories and at collieries, and I have been really thrilled by the facilities which have been provided for the workers there, but the point I wish to make is that the pace which has been set in inculcation of the principle of communal feeding ought to be intensified.
There should be more momentum by the Government Departments concerned, in bringing canteen facilities to a greater body of industrial workers. In reply to a Question the other day, the Secretary for Mines had to say that there were only 16 or 17 canteens in the mining industry that were serving hot meals, and I was amazed to hear that information. The experience of my hon. Friend and myself when we visited a colliery canteen in the Yorkshire coalfield impressed us very much with the value of canteens to the workers concerned. I would impress upon the Ministers who are responsible for extending such facilities that more canteens should be established in industrial works; I refer particularly to the mines. I have had experience in recent weeks at certain pits, where men are going to work provided only with dry bread. The facilities, which have been established only in small measure, should be extended. The difficulties and hardships imposed upon our men would thus be overcome, and the men would be better fitted for their work and more capable of producing the coal which is so much needed at this time. I make a special appeal to the Secretary for Mines to expedite this matter, hot at some distant future but at this moment, because the need for the establishment of canteens wherever possible is urgent.
During my visit to the factory to which I have referred I was amazed at the canteen facilities provided. At about half-past 12 I had the pleasure of seeing at least 600 people at one time, the greater number of them women, sitting down to a well-prepared, well-cooked and substantial meal. I wish that could be done in the mining industry in greater measure than at the present time. I have no doubt that the output per man-shift would be considerably increased in that event. There is unanimity in every part of the House about the desirability of canteens and communal feeding. There appears to be no difference of opinion on this

matter, and I therefore stress the importance of providing the maximum feeding facilities for workers in heavy industries. I urge this with all the power of which I am capable, in order to get increased tempo, particularly in the mining industry, in the establishment of canteen facilities. The extension of communal feeding will not only be of direct benefit to individual workers, and to the nation by way of increased productivity, but will benefit the wives, who will be relieved of the anxieties and hardships which they experience in making provision for the feeding of their men and their families, in these days of short rations.
My last point is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I hope that, in the changes he has proposed for workers in heavy industry, there will not be differentiation among different types of workers in the same industry. When the cheese ration was increased for underground workers, it was a mistake not to apply it universally over the general body of colliery workers. Great dissatisfaction was caused, and much confusion, among men working not only in the same industry but in the same pit. I hope that that kind of mistake will not be made in future. I appeal to the Ministers concerned to do all they can to increase the canteen facilities which are already in existence, so that people who are contributing very much to the national war effort will get the maximum possible food. These workers will show their appreciation of such treatment by giving increased productivity.

Mr. Robertson: I would like to add my word of appreciation to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food for the very interesting statement which he gave us to-day of the food position of the country. We have heard a good deal about industrial canteens. In connection with my stop-gap representation of Peebles and South Midlothian, I visited Edinburgh on Friday and saw a canteen in a training centre for women. They came from all walks of life and were being trained to operate machine tools and on completion of the course, their services were in demand for munition making. An excellent canteen is run by an outside caterer. A meal consisting of hot broth, a meat course, and two vegetables was being served and the girls who were taking it seemed to be enjoying


it, and I felt I would like to join them. Many more girls, however, were not taking the meal, but were having tea and buns. I thought this was most distressing. The girls had been working from 8 in the morning and now had an hour's break, and they were to go on working until 5 or 6 at night. Other girls had brought in their own meal, a piece and a flask of tea.
I wondered whether this was due to lack of money, but I was assured that these girls were receiving 38s. per week, which is still a fairly good income in Scotland for a girl who has only to keep herself. I do not think lack of money prevents these girls from taking the good meat meal which they should have been enjoying. I draw the attention of the Minister to this matter in the hope that something can be done. Human nature being what it is, it is going to be rather difficult to overcome that difficulty, but I think all of us here in the House should take steps to ventilate it and see that where good meals are provided advantage is taken of them.
We have heard about miners' canteens. Last Saturday I went to a colliery in the second largest coalfield in Scotland, North Midlothian, and saw a canteen there. The men, I am told, are making full use of it, but unhappily the meagre rations supplied by the Ministry of Food are, in my view, causing the enterprise to fail, almost if not entirely. The Government's purpose is to give to the heavy manual worker more rationed meats. In that canteen he was getting more bread. True, he was getting a spread of cheese on one day, beef on another, and on the third day he had polony sausage. The day I was there was polony sausage day, and although in the plentiful days of peace a polony sausage was a good variety of food, in the restricted days of war it is not. I asked if the men liked it, and I was told that it was the one thing they did not like very well. The canteen had been open only about a fortnight, and I am perfectly certain that their dislike will become so intense that the canteen will not be able to sell the polony sausage, because these very intelligent men, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said, realise that polony sausage to-day is about 5 per cent. old sow and 95 per cent. bread. To put that between two chunks of bread

is not to give the miner what the Government want him to have, and what we all know he must have if he is to carry on his heavy work producing coal for the nation's war effort. I pointed that out to the canteen manager, and being a kind of caterer myself suggested that it could be improved. He agreed with me, but said they always came up against the difficulty that they could not get rationed foods. The contract had been given to the local co-operative society, and I am perfectly certain that the society is passing on to the canteen what is obtained.
Is it beyond the powers of the Department to improve that position? Is it impossible to give more food, and to cook it? Would it be impossible to give soup every day, either broth, pea soup or lentil soup, and supplement it one day with roast beef, another with boiled beef, another with fish, another with sausages and onions, and further would it be impossible to serve it down the pit? We had very little notice of this Debate—at least hon. Members on this side were only told yesterday—and I did not have much time to carry my investigation any further. But I telephoned to the managing director of this colliery company last night, and asked him if he would be agreeable to conducting an experiment, always provided that the Ministry of Food gave the necessary provisions, designed to see whether meals could be served down the pit. He said he certainly would; it might be difficult, but he would be very pleased to try it.

Mr. George Griffiths: That is very interesting, but the men are working a couple of miles away from each other and from the bottom of the pit. Are you going to send the food in a tub or what? It is an impossibility.

Mr. Robertson: Naturally I pay a great deal of attention to what my hon. Friend says in regard to mining, and I am simply putting up my own views. But I have the honour to be the chairman of a catering company, and we have supplied hot meals to offices and other places outside. We were told before we started that it was difficult if not impossible, but in these days we are getting used to doing the impossible. I have been down this pit; there is a fine cage which takes us down to the bottom, 3,000 feet below the surface of the ground; there


are tubs which run empty from the cage to bring the coal won from the face back to the shaft. Is it impossible to send food, in heated containers, down to the men? They are working, I agree, but they have to stop for a meal. I have been with them in the galleries when they have been sitting and eating their "piece"; that "piece" was all right in the days before the war, when they could go back home at night and have a fine substantial meal of boiled beef and carrots or any other substantial food, but they cannot do that to-day. Miners have told me that there was nothing in the shape of rationed foods left in their homes after Wednesday. But they have to work after Wednesday. We want coal after Wednesday, and the answer is polony sausage. You will not get coal with that kind of thing, and I submit to my hon. Friend who is so expert in mining, and to the other mining Members, that it is worth trying. I want to make this offer to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The colliery company is willing that the experiment should be carried out. If no better caterer could be found, I should be very pleased to go and give a week of my time to organising the cooking of hot meals in the canteen and supplying them hot—two courses at 9d., which I believe would cover it—to the men down below, who are now paying 6d. for something which is almost valueless.
I will not prolong this discussion in regard to mining, I may get into depths which are beyond me, but I would like to say a word in regard to British Restaurants. When these were first conceived, the idea, as I understood it, was that they were to make up for deficiencies in cooking in the home caused by enemy action—gas being cut off, transport or houses being bombed. They were to be a bomb-damage feeding arrangement, something to take the place of the house but not that of the caterer. What is happening, however, is that the British Restaurant scheme is moving away altogether from its original functions, and to-day British Restaurants are competing with a sadly-harassed catering trade. My right hon. and gallant Friend, in his speech, told us how these British Restaurants and communal feeding centres are doing a great work, and then he let the cat out of the bag when he said that they are supplying only 1,000,000 meals a week, while other

caterers are supplying 35,000,000 meals a week. It is only scratching the surface. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then what are you grumbling about?"] My answer to my hon. Friend is that the caterer is losing his trade. I saw one to-day in Knightsbridge; a small man doing 150 hot meals daily at lunch-time. He has lost half his trade by the opening of the British Restaurants at the bottom of Park Lane, Piccadilly and Mayfair. Half his trade has gone. The black-coated workers who frequented his restaurant are now going to the British Restaurant, where, probably, no rent is paid, no taxes are paid, and the ladies of the Women's Voluntary Service are giving their time for nothing. The only wages paid in that restaurant, I believe, go to the cook and one or two others.
Is that fair dealing? Do you expect the caterer to survive and pay his way, and pay his municipal and State taxes? This man had a rent of £200 a year before the war. I would be very pleased to give my right hon. and gallant Friend his name and address. He went to his landlord and said that he was in a very difficult situation, many of his customers had been evacuated, and he really was not able to pay the rent. The landlord, like the good fellow he is, asked him what he thought he could pay. He said he could pay £1 a week, and his rent was cut down from £200 a year to £1 a week. He began to become solvent again, and then he met the competition of this British Restaurant, with unpaid labour, no rent and rates, and naturally his custom is being taken away. That is a most unfair situation. It is a situation which I believe is developing all over the country, and while no bona fide caterer objects to the State or the municipality taking on a job which is not being done by the caterer, they do strongly object to this intrusion on the part of the municipality, which is working on favoured terms and destroying them.
At Fishmongers Hall is another British Restaurant in the heart of the much-blitzed City of London. There is not the slightest need for it. It was opened some little time ago. One would have thought that the same desire that we have heard from the Front Bench to deal with the manual worker would have been its first manifestation. Cold storage workers at Billingsgate have heavy lifts to make and in addition have to work in a very low


temperature. They need nourishment to make good not only the loss of energy but the loss of body heat. I asked the men how they were getting on for food, and they said "Not so bad". I asked them if they had tried the British Restaurant at Fishmongers' Hall, and they said they had not. I told them to go and try it in relays. They went, and it was not open. It did not open until 12 o'clock. The black-coated worker is being catered for very well by caterers in the City of London. There are still plenty of restaurants supplying meals at cheap prices. They have done it for years and will continue to do so when the war is over. I take is that the Fishmongers' Company is not charging rent for the premises, or rates, but there the British Restaurant is set up in opposition to all these little fellows who for years have dealt with the men at Billingsgate and other market places, railway company carmen and haulage employees. But the British Restaurant is not open to deal with them. It does not open until midday.
I approached my noble Friend on this matter and asked him to consider the opening of the British Restaurant so that these workers could be fed. He said he would look into the matter. Three of his emissaries arrived at my company's premises, apparently to see if there was any good reason for not doing it. Anybody opening a restaurant or shop has to take his chance. He has to open and hope he will attract custom by his enterprise and the food and service he gives. These men came down and said to those they visited, "You are well satisfied with existing catering facilities." They reported that on the inquiries they had made there was no need for this British Restaurant to open earlier. The workers for whom I wanted this facility begin at 6 a.m.; their working day is three hours ahead of the ordinary individual, and they finish three hours earlier. If that restaurant is to do what Parliament, I am sure, wants it to do, it must be in a position to serve them between 10 a.m. and 12. But it does not open until 12. You will never get business by taking a negative attitude. You have to take the reverse attitude and say, "This has been put here for you. We know you want good food, and we are out to supply it." I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of my remarks with regard to this unfair com-

petition. I am sure my hon. Friends opposite who have fought for labour would be the first to admit how very unfair it is to a tradesman who has to pay his rent and rates and waiters, with no voluntary helpers coming in to work for nothing. No one comes to the company of which I am chairman and says that he will work for me for nothing. I do not blame them. We have a difficult job to get adequate staff to whom we offer good wages and food.
I would like before I finish to give some facts regarding the position of the small caterer from my own experience and knowledge. The company I have in mind has the name of Pearce over its restaurants. The original Pearce was one of the greatest caterers this city has ever known. After the great dock strike he was asked to take on temperance catering for the working men. His son was head of the concern I am referring to, and when he died I took his place. When war broke out one-third of our customers disappeared. We had been paying our way, but that plunged us into a loss. We went to the landlords and said that we could not afford the rent that we had contracted to pay. They met us. There are no directors' fees, no salaries. We lost £5,500 in the first year, but we kept 400 people in employment, and we served a 3-course table d'hote meal at 1s. 6d., the same price as pre-war. In the second year the loss was brought down to £2,500, but there are no dividends, and every landlord is taking 50 per cent. of the former rent. That is the story I can tell of my own little concern.. It is true of nearly every, catering concern in the City of London. I hope that the House, however anxious it may be to feed and look after the people, will bear in mind that the people have been looked after by caterers and tradesmen who are still trying to pay their way, and are still better able to give the service the country wants than the amateurs who staff the British Restaurants.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am almost tempted to enter into this discussion as to the wisdom of fostering or furthering British Restaurants as compared with the difficulties that are being presented to the small caterer, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson). It would take quite a long time, and I would suggest to him that


had he paid particular attention to the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago, he would have noticed that small caterers were not only to have generous and favourable consideration, but also increased rations in the course of the next few weeks if they are actually feeding industrial workers and doing a useful job of work in connection with the war effort. But I am not disposed to follow this argument. I think he set a trap. I will not bite for the time being. We are debating to-day the utility of industrial canteens and the need to feed the industrial worker. We shall have a discussion on the other subject another day, and probably we shall reveal some of the profits that have been made in the catering trade by some of the people who at the moment are squealing at the success of the British Restaurants. I am sorry that the Secretary for Mines has left us, because I think he missed an opportunity though he will be able to read what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I was particularly interested the other day when I heard the Secretary for Mines, in reply to a Question regarding pit-head canteens, say that out of 751 canteens that have been opened in this county only 16 can serve a good, wholesome meal, and I believe that the greater part of those are in Yorkshire. This is after several months of propaganda by the Mines Department and oceans of words by the Minister of Labour. I hope that the House will refuse to tolerate this situation for one moment longer. I hope that we shall begin to examine this question, and I hope we shall say now that it shall not be allowed to continue, because we know that in every quarter of the House there has been agreement that the industrial worker, and the miners in particular, shall be adequately, or properly, fed. I believe it was the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) who said that an adequate supply of fuel for the human engine must be provided. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that we are all banging at an open door. But how are we to provide this increased fuel? Must it be done through the homestead, by the drudgery of the housewife? I do not think that is a correct way out. I cannot believe that the Parliamentary Secretary would wish to increase the size of the food queues and

to make miners' wives waste their precious time, as they are doing, in queues for these unrationed commodities.
I believe that the solution lies along the line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, by providing canteens, or by providing good wholesome meals at the works, as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested. We require these canteens at once in every mining village If the Minister of Mines were able to visit the canteens in South Yorkshire, he would see what a wonderful success has been made of a job which has been tackled only in the last few months. Having dined at one of these canteens I would recommend the Members of the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons to visit it. A 1s. meal is provided in the canteen which I visited in company with the hon. Member for Normanton and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). It was a real colonel's banquet. It was a bob's worth the like of which I have never seen at a Lyons' restaurant or a J.P. restaurant. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or at the House of Commons."] Or at the House of Commons. There were 1,500 miners served in that restaurant on one day. It is open 16 hours out of the 24, and good hot meals are served. The building, the equipment, the furniture and everything associated therewith have been provided on credit because the Minister of Mines has not yet been able to find the money, but the fact remains that this canteen is providing a good wholesome meal at a regular price, with the result that the men are happy and contented, and so are the housewives. The housewives said to me, "Why did they not think of this years ago? It would have saved us all that drudgery."
If we have to leave this job of developing canteens in the mining industry to the Secretary for Mines and his Department, it will not get very far. I say that not because I doubt the sincerity of the Secretary for Mines, but because I believe the job is far beyond the capacities of his Department. We must get beyond the pie and pasty and sausage roll idea. The Parliamentary Secretary is as keen, I believe, as anybody to provide the necessary food. In any canteen that I have visited there has been no difficulty in securing adequate supplies of food—and in many cases, generous supplies. We also have the Minister of Labour telling us


of all he wants done and advising employers how it should be done, but in certain parts of the country we do not seem to get any forrader. I know that the idea has the support of the Minister. There seems to be good will on all sides. But where is this lag in providing further canteens in which a good sit-down meal can be supplied? There is a hold-up somewhere. We are told by mine managers, we are told by pit-head committees, we are told by trade union secretaries, that they simply cannot get any reply from Government Departments when they ask when they are going to get the money or where it is coming from. I know that certain answers can be provided by certain Government Departments, but which, I do not know. I would even appeal to the War Cabinet to appoint a Minister to devote the whole of his time during the next six months to canteen organisation. I do not want to suggest a title for this Minister, but if a description of such a person is asked for, I would call him the Director of Canteens and Workers' Restaurants He would come up against many obstacles and have a very busy time, but it would repay the nation a thousand times over if we chose the right man. I believe he would have to slash the red tape, not just cut it, but if vision and imagination were shown I believe he could make considerable progress.
The munition factories are definitely in a better position than the mining industries, but when I went for an industrial tour a few months ago I came back very sadly disappointed. At the first factory I visited there were 1,500 people employed. The maximum canteen arrangements for the whole mass of those workers was a small canteen about 10 yards square, and their equipment and supplies consisted only of a huge tea urn and pies, buns and chewing gum. Those were the stocks on the counter, or under the counter, for that canteen for 1,500 people. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the name of the firm if he wishes me to do so. At the second factory I visited, they said that the canteen facilities had been improved. They had increased their equipment. They said that they could provide meals for 150 people. When I inquired how many they had on the pay roll, they said that the number was 1,600. But, worse still, in a discussion that I had with the

management they complained to me of a very high percentage of absenteeism at this particular factory, which was largely confined to the married women workers. I was very concerned about it, because in the vast majority of cases this absenteeism was on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning—a very serious state of affairs. But is there any wonder? These married women who are working in the factories have their own home problems to solve, and the week-end in the local market is the only time during which they can hope to solve these problems for themselves. There are three other new factories in the area through which I went, employing between them roughly 4,000 people, but in each case an up-to-date canteen has been provided, and wholesome hot meals can be obtained at these factories each day and every day. The workers sit down and enjoy the "music while you work" programme as well as a meal, but there is no absenteeism. The management said, "We have 4,000 contented workers and no absenteeism at all."
There is another large industrial undertaking in the same town, and I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has received a communication from this particular area, because I intend to refer to it in a few moments. It is a railway centre. I am avoiding mentioning names for a very deliberate reason, but it is a railway centre where there are something like 4,000 people employed. These workers are even worse off than the miners, because they have not the eight ounces of cheese ration to help them along, and they have no canteen. The maximum facilities that they had at this particular works consisted of a couple of old railway coaches tucked away in a siding. I asked the management about three months ago what they were intending to do to comply with the Order both of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Labour. They had a ready made answer. They said, "We are getting out a scheme and we hope to have an up to date canteen in a few weeks' time." But apparently they have been preparing this scheme for months, and this morning, in view of this Debate taking place, I received a copy of a letter, the original of which has been sent, unfortunately by mistake, to the wrong Government Department. It has been sent to the Home Secretary. It is from the branch secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen for


this particular area, and it is headed "Canteen facilities, Educational accommodation, National welfare recommendations," and is dated 25th September, and addressed, unfortunately, to the Home Secretary. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Labour will seek the transfer of this particular letter. It says:
I was asked by the members to write to you on the above question, which, we feel, requires your special attention. On 9th April my branch had a deputation to the Works Mechanical Engineer, when we obtained the assurance that he would carry out some of the suggestions put in by us; and in connection with canteen feeding arrangements, he assured us that steps were being taken and they would ask for lists of workpeople who desired canteen feeding. These lists have been handed in, but after repeating our request both by letter and deputation, and through interviews with the mechanical engineer's office we are still having complaints from the workpeople that they are not being considered in the light of the fact that it is six months since our application.
This trade union branch has done its best by letter on 9th April, by deputation on 15th April, by a further letter on 8th June and another letter on 27th June, and a. further request on 13th August, and by the letter which I have just quoted. All these representations have been made by one of the largest trade union branches catering for railwaymen in the whole of Yorkshire, and they have not received anything beyond the promise that "We have got a little scheme." I submit that that is the general condition in that area, which I inspected some few months ago. After 12 months of speeches by the Minister of Labour and of propaganda by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and by the Noble Lord, the position is totally unsatisfactory. I therefore believe that there is some justification for the plea which I have made for the appointment of a Minister to take charge of, and to accept the sole responsibility for, this very urgent problem.
I would like also to say a word about another section of railway workers, because I have had a present sent to me at the House this morning, and it is a very interesting one. I have here a sample biscuit. In fact, I have tried it on my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), and he says that it would break the jaws of a crocodile. He has tried it, anyway. I wonder whether it would surprise the House to know that biscuits like this, plus a small jar of cooked meat, are actually supplied as an

extra ration to our railway engine drivers, stokers and guards on the long-distance trains. They are supplied to what are called the railway crew. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is expressing a little doubt. I wonder whether I understand him aright, because I have here a receipt for an account sent by the driver himself for "ham and tongue paste, yd.; biscuits, 2d.; total, 9d.," and he says:
I hereby authorise the London and North Eastern Railway Company to deduct from my wages the amount shown below as the total charge for the commodities which have been supplied to me. Signed E. J. Hirst.
whom I take to be the engine driver. That is the actual situation that has been reported to me during the last 24 hours. [Interruption.] The biscuit will not become soft; it will be concrete by the end of the war. I want the House to understand that this is actually the kind of extra ration or supplementary ration that is being supplied to the railway crews who are actually in charge of our fast trains on the London and North Eastern Railway. Furthermore, according to the information he has given to me, the engine drivers and the stokers are not to consume these biscuits until after they have been on a shift of 12 hours.
There is something radically wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary may quote all the figures in the way that he likes, and the Secretary for Mines may quote figures—and I am very grateful for the announcement, as, I am sure, every industrial worker and every housewife will be, of the increased rations to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred today—but we must recognise that in the matter of canteen feeding or providing food for industrial workers this kind of food, cement or concrete biscuits, with sausage rolls and pies, is certainly not even a contribution to the problem of feeding the industrial worker. I believe that we are justified in our plea to-day. We are vigorously in favour of a revolutionary change in the matter of feeding, the industrial worker. We want to see canteens developed in every part of the country, but I do not think that we can do it just because the Minister of Labour makes a speech in some part of the industrial world during the week-end.
I do not think we shall do it simply because the Minister of Food makes a broadcast in place of Mr. Freddie Grisewood in the "Kitchen Front" pro-


gramme. I believe there must be direction, drive and determination on the part of some Minister who is entrusted with the full responsibility for the task, and that in view of the criticisms which have been levelled from these benches the Cabinet must recognise that there is an agitation springing up. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do something about it and that the War Cabinet will re-examine the whole situation and recognise the responsibility of the Government in this difficult position in which we find ourselves.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: The question of diet for heavy workers has occupied a large part of this Debate and is one of its most important aspects, but it is no new problem. The diet of heavy workers was really better 100 years ago than it is to-day, and I say that on the authority of Sir William Bragg, who was not only President of the Royal Society but was, and I think still is, chairman of the Scientific Food Committee set up by the Ministry of Food. In the autumn of last year Sir William Bragg contributed a highly important paper to the "Times," in which he pointed out that there had been a marked deterioration in the nutrition of the nation during the last 50 to 100 years. He further pointed out that that deterioration was very probably largely due to an unfortunate change in the habits of the industrial worker, and the item which struck his imagination most completely was, the change-over from eating wholemeal bread, milk and green vegetables to the predilection for white bread and meat. That article produced an interesting correspondence in the "Times," and it was at once obvious that the whole scientific world was supporting Sir William Bragg in his views.
Finally, the correspondence was rounded off by another distinguished scientist, Sir Wyndham Dunstan, who, I think, made a very happy suggestion. He said that the extremists would like 100 per cent, wheat germ incorporated in flour and that the present ratio was 73 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a Question by me recently, said that the Ministry were not prepared to go any higher than 75 per cent., so we may take it that that is the static level. The difference between 75 per cent, and 100 per

cent., Sir Wyndham Dunstan suggested, might well be the subject of a compromise, and he proposed an extraction of 85 per cent, for the national war loaf. That seems a very happy suggestion, and it has in fact been adopted—I do not know whether on the advice of that distinguished scientist — for the production of the national wholemeal loaf. But the difficulty, is that there is competition between the national wholewheat loaf and the white loaf of current use. I would like to express my appreciation of the efforts which have been made by the Ministry to popularise the national wholewheat loaf, but it has not been highly successful. I do not think we have time to exercise persuasive methods, when a much more immediate result would obviously be effected by the compulsory or universal method.
There is authoritative precedent for such a step. In the middle of the last war, at the worst period of the submarine menace, the wholemeal loaf was exclusively supplied as the loaf of the nation. That was accepted without really serious demur. It was followed by excellent results from the health point of view, and I can give statistics, although I think the House may accept that statement, because it was issued on the highest possible authority. It is, therefore, very puzzling why there has been this extraordinarily sustained reluctance on the part of the Ministry of Food to adopt what seems to be the perfectly inevitable conclusion that provision of the 85 per cent, loaf as the sole supply would create no serious dissatisfaction. In July last the Ministry obviously became aware of the considerable defects of the current white loaf, and provision was made to supplement it when it was found that it was not complete. The previous Parliamentary Secretary made a. very important speech in the House and introduced, with a great fanfare of trumpets, the fortified white loaf which the Ministry proposed to put on the market. The: loaf, so it was said, would stagger humanity and astonish the scientists of the world It was, it was said, "a revolutionary proceeding." Two things made it a revolutionary procedure. The first was the addition of a synthetic vitamin—one of six vitamins grouped under Vitamin B—and a certain amount of unspecified calcium salt. In a quite recent answer to a Question by me, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that the


fortified white loaf—fortified with Vitamin B—is on restricted sale in a small area in South Wales. In answer to another Question, my right hon. and gallant Friend said the addition of calcium, the second proposal, had not yet been put in operation but had not been abandoned.
It is quite obvious that bread is the most important item in the food of the nation. It must be and it is the quality of bread upon which the sustenance of the vast majority of our people must depend. The present scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food, in an address given in the House a few months ago, assured us that there was no prospect of Germany being starved into surrender because the German Government had sensibly secured a diet based upon what he called the universal peasant diet. That diet includes as its most important items wholemeal flour and a certain quantity of milk, the staple foods of every country. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Professor A. V. Hill) stress the importance of not forgetting the energy-producing foods at a time when there is an undue craze for protective foods. It is the energy-producing foods that are largely necessary for heavy workers, and one of the best energy-producing foods is bread made from stone-ground wholemeal flour.
I submit that the present position is lamentable. For the last 14 months the efforts of the Ministry of Food in this respect, however praiseworthy, have been singularly unsuccessful. I have made wide inquiries at a dozen places in the country; I have tried to get the wholewheat loaf, and almost invariably I have failed to do so; and I think this has been the experience of most people. The wholewheat loaf is not in general supply; it is not a favourite with the millers and bakers; and because of this it has no chance in competition with the white loaf at the present time. This white loaf consists solely of material which is very little more than starch, and the unfortunate person who buys white bread under the impression that it is still the staff of life is completely mistaken. It is just as bad as that stupid arrangement with regard to sausages and uneatable biscuits mentioned by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden). What is the obstacle to producing an 85 per cent, loaf as an exclusive product? The objection that is com-

monly stated is that people will not change their habits in the middle of the war, but I submit that that statement was irrefutably contradicted by the success of the wholemeal loaf in the last war. Surely, the nation has made far greater sacrifices in diet and other matters than would be involved in overcoming what is, after all, a fad of only some 20 years' standing. I think that the Minister of Food has a totally fallacious idea of the spirit of our people. I do not believe there would be any trouble in making this change if a proper explanation were given. It is very interesting to note that in the Army, where the wholewheat loaf is obtainable, it is comparatively more popular than it is ouside the Army.
The wholewheat loaf is an innovation that would have an assured success if it were put forward with the authority that would be commanded by a Minister speaking on the subject with the wholehearted support of the scientific world. The position is that for 14 months we have been feeding on a very inefficient and fallacious form of diet. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what would be the difficulty in making the wholewheat loaf compulsory? He has said that he is confident about the stocks of staple commodities in this country. Nevertheless, in one of the excellent advertisements, which the Ministry of Food have issued to persuade people to buy wholewheat bread, there is a picture of five ships, and it is pointed out that if the community were to eat the wholewheat loaf, one ship out of five could be spared for the transport of other commodities. Are we really so completely confident as to the shipping position that we can afford to ignore that one-fifth which could be saved? If one-fifth of our shipping space could be saved, and if the consumption of the product which enabled us to make that saving would be enormously to the benefit of the nutrition of the country, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary again why the wholewheat loaf cannot be made compulsory?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: The hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) devoted the whole of his speech to the value of the wholemeal loaf, and before dealing with one or two other points, I should like heartily to endorse everything that he said. I cannot understand why the Ministry of Food have not taken stronger action in this matter. In following very carefully the


propaganda on the radio and in the newspapers I have noted that the Ministry tell the public that the wholemeal loaf is excellent, but they do not say clearly that it is infinitely better than white bread. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether the millers are bringing such pressure on the Ministry that the Ministry are being persuaded to mention the wholemeal loaf only in rather modified terms. I know that the House is apt rather to sneer at scientists, but there is no doubt that scientists are unanimous about the value of the wholemeal loaf. We are told that only 7 per cent, of the bread eaten in this country is wholemeal bread. I hope that the Ministry will take much stronger action in this matter.
Like many other hon. Members, I want to express my satisfaction at the statement we have heard to-day. It has been rather a long time in coming, but at last we know that the workers engaged in heavy manual work will get an increase in rations. During the last few months, I have been a little puzzled at different times when I have gone to cookery demonstrations to see how the demonstrator was teaching the women of the country. I have listened to her telling them in simple terms how to obtain a balanced diet for the family, and I have realised that in homes where there are coalminers, railwaymen, men and women engaged in heavy manual work, it is quite impossible to give this balanced diet, and that the diet must inevitably be top-heavy with carbohydrates. I am very glad to' hear that this is to be altered.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his Noble Friend the Minister of Food that some of us are a little perturbed when we realise that during the last year tuberculosis has increased in this country. I have noticed that many people, when talking about food and when discussing whether rations should be increased, have said, "Look at the health statistics; this country is perfectly healthy; there have been no epidemics." I suggest that is no argument. Although there have not been many infectious epidemics in the country, the fact is that malnutrition has an insidious onset. Unfortunately perhaps, malnutrition is not accompanied by a rash. I sometimes wish that those who suffer from malnutrition would develop a slight red rash so as to attract the attention of society to the conditions

from which they are suffering. Although malnutrition is not spectacular, it is no less deadly.
I feel that the Minister of Food should direct his attention to the fact that pulmonary tuberculosis, which often results from under-nourishment, is increasing in this country, particularly in the age groups between 18 and 40. It is between the ages of 18 and 40 that workers are capable of their maximum output. I deplore the fact that women are more prone to tuberculosis than men. I wish the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) was in his place. He told the House that he visited many canteens in the North and found that the workers were enjoying a well-balanced meal, but that he was shocked to discover that women were eating a meal which consisted of a bun and a cup of tea. In view of the fact that women are earning 38s. a week, he considered this was not due to their having insufficient money. I should like to tell the House that such an argument is ridiculous. The woman who is engaged on heavy manual work is not concerned with slimming; she is well slimmed as a result of her work. These girls who are eating buns and tea, and have to work for six hours after a meal of this type, are doing so because their accommodation costs them between 26s. and 28s. per week, which, after they have paid for their fares and clothes, leaves them with little to pay for a well-balanced meal.
I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider making stronger representations to the Board of Education on the question of school meals. We have had an excellent suggestion made during the Debate to-day. It was pointed out that British Restaurants might be made available for school children. The children could have their meals at 12 o'clock, and the workers could obtain their food later. I am told that the local authorities have refused to supply meals to school children because of the lack of facilities. In conclusion, I want to make an appeal, for a section of workers who have not been mentioned to-day. No doubt they have not been mentioned because they are a totally unorganised section of the community—I am speaking of housewives and expectant mothers. The expectant mother is the only individual who is asked to sustain two lives on one ration. Can


there be any justification for that? The only concession made to an expectant mother, who needs body-building material, protective foods and energising foods, is that she can obtain one pint of milk per day at the reduced price of 2d. Many of our expectant mothers are working in our factories until they are in an advanced state of pregnancy, and they should have equal consideration with those who are doing heavy manual work, particularly in view of the fact that they are serving the country and doing one of the finest forms of national service.

Mr. George Griffiths: I should not have intervened during this Debate but for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson). I wish to cross swords with him for a moment. I hope the Minister of Food will not adopt the suggestion he made for providing hot meals in the pits. For a. Member to make such a suggestion shows that he does not understand mining. I feel, as one who has worked in the pits for a quarter of a century, and as one who has worked on piece rates at the coal face, that my experience will be worth something to the Minister. Some men are working three miles away from the pit bottom, and some of the roads are no more than 4 feet 6 inches high and 3 feet 6 inches wide. The hon. Member suggested that meals should be cooked on the surface or at the bottom of the pit and then transported two or three miles to the coal face. The men at the coal face have only 20 minutes for what we call "snap time," and they would be left with little time to eat these meals after they had passed the food along to the various men working with them. These men are on piece work, and they would not forgive the Minister if he adopted such a scheme. I feel, as a practical miner, that it is up to me to speak against this suggestion.
I wish now to refer to canteens. Out of 750 canteens, only 16 are supplying hot meals. This time, however, I happen to be fortunate—usually I am like the cow's tail and am generally behind the others—because we have two canteens in my division at two of the biggest pits in the country. The men and the wives are highly satisfied with them. We want the money which is being accumulated in the Miners Welfare Fund to be spent in providing these canteens so that our men can get a rattling good meal. The

reason why the Welfare Fund has this money is because it cannot provide any more baths. The men enjoy these meals because they have clean hands and faces. In olden days, my father and grandfather used to say that we must not wash our backs too often because it would make us too weak to work. Some said that when these baths were provided they would not be used, but the fact is that more men wish to use them than can be accommodated and some have to go home dirty. The time may come when miners may be called blacklegs, and I am not at all sure that wives whose husbands do not use the baths will not tell their menfolk, "If thou dost not get a bath thou wilt not sleep with me."
The reason why every Jack is coming home clean is to prevent the pit marks getting on the hearth. I know something about that. When I was at home with my parents four of us lads worked in the pit. We used to wait our turn to boil the water on the fire. My mother could not clean that kitchen till six o'clock at night. If she cleaned it before we came from the pit, it was worse when we had finished bathing than before. Baths and a hot meal are of untold value to the miner and his wife. Where they are only getting a bit of sausage and a bit of sandwich they are getting sick of it. They want a hot meal, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to press it for all he is worth. A miner told me the other day, "If you give us a square meal, we will give you a square deal and a square tonnage." I was bitterly disappointed recently to find that tonnage per man is going down instead of going up, at the very time in the world crisis when it ought to go up, and it is largely due to lack of food. You cannot expect a man to work six days a week if he has a square meal only on Sunday and Monday, and that is what they have been getting.
I am disappointed at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is treating the people whom I champion in the matter of eggs. I have had a letter from a man who has had three eggs a day prescribed by his medical man because he is a diabetic. I am not speaking from the same theoretical standpoint as; the two medical Members who have spoken, but I am speaking from the standpoint of one who has gone through this business. From the point of view of theory they


are much higher than I am, but an ounce of experience is worth a good many tons of theory. I used to have 24 a week when I was in Leeds Infirmary. There are thousands of diabetics who are almost throwing their arms up in despair at the thought that they are not going to be able to have more than two eggs next month and only three during the last month of the year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give these people, some of whom are on the edge of the grave, a chance of living a little longer? If he cannot give them three eggs a day as prescribed by the doctor, will he see that they get not less than one every day?

Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend always introduces that vehement human touch which makes his speeches a great delight to listen to. I always learn something from him when I am fortunate enough to hear him. I found myself, however, in a little disagreement with him about hot meals for miners. I would not trespass on his knowledge of the mining industry, recognising that what he says is no doubt correct, but surely he will admit that, while there may be circumstances such as he describes where it is impracticable to get hot meals to people working below the surface, there may be other cases where it is a practical possibility, and surely it should be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary at least to accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) to undertake an experiment to show that something of that order can be done in some circumstances.
I should like to say a word in support of the hon. Members for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) and West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) about flour. I have had this out with the Parliamentary Secretary several times, but have never yet had a satisfactory answer. One rarely gets a satisfactory answer from a Minister. I suppose that is what they are there for. There is nothing to argue about in this matter of whole wheat meal. Everyone who has made a most cursory study of the problem knows, from the evidence to be seen in the shops, that the essential, vitamins are taken out of the flour and sold at a larger price for health foods. They ought to be left in the loaf for the benefit of every man who needs

bread as his main sustenance in time of war. The real fact is that the Ministry is afraid of the millers' combine and is afraid to tackle it because it is too strong. It is flying in the face of all scientific knowledge and of all those who have studied the matter to refuse the inclusion of wholewheat in flour. It is a policy of complete insanity and ineptitude. I am surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not dig his Noble Friend in the ribs and tell him to follow the right policy.
The hon. Member for Streatham spoke at some length of the relative merits of private catering firms and the British Restaurants and referred particularly to one at the end of Park Lane. This is not a subject that I could pursue usefully, even if I were allowed, but I am a little inclined to think that he was really arguing the case for the abolition of landlords rather than of British Restaurants, because he said there was a small restaurant for which the small proprietor was paying £200 a year in rent, whereas the British Restaurant next door did not have to pay that rent. I will not pursue that further, but I commend it to the attention of the House in the hope that I may be allowed to bring the matter up again when the menace of landlords is a permissible subject for discussion.
I rose to say a word about canteens. I was glad to hear from my hon. Friends that the Parliamentary Secretary had said that rations are to be increased. Everybody knows the difficulties which the housewife has in providing the midday meal for the men, especially those in the heavy engineering, mining and like industries, unless special arrangements are made for their proper feeding in the middle of the day near their places of work. It is all very well to talk about increasing the ration and increasing it in fact, and it is all very well talking about canteens and their desirability, but will the workers get the canteens? It is not very much use under existing conditions telling employers who run small concerns that they must provide simple feeding arrangements for their workers. Some are prepared to do it, even when they almost cannot, but a great number of people under the present taxation conditions are simply not in a position to spend the money.
I would like to give a case I know about of a firm which in the last financial year made a gross profit of £130,000. Under existing taxation arrangements they had to pay away £111,000 in taxation. That was all right, except that they did not like doing it. They were left only with a bare £19,000, which, incidentally, was £7,000 below what they used to get in their standard year, owing to the increase in Income Tax. They employ 1,500 men, and it would be impossible to put up a canteen of the right size under an expenditure of £8,000 or £10,000. How is that to be done unless the firm is forced to do it or unless some financial aid is forthcoming from the Government? I am not arguing about who should pay for it. I am only arguing that workers must be provided with canteens and that financial humbug should not be allowed to stand in the way.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): In a case where there are 1,500 employees the law compels the owner to make that provision.

Mr. Stokes: I am aware of that, and I have seen the very enlightening correspondence between the firm in question, the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had an order to carry out the instructions of the Ministry of Labour, which meant in effect they had to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to "pop off," so far as Treasury regulations as to borrowing were concerned, because the money simply was not there. You can compel people to do it by all means. I do not object to that. We want to be able to see that all people are provided with their mid-day sustenance on the spot. What I am suggesting is that there is no sense in putting out glorious statements about canteens and increased rations for them unless the funds are to be forthcoming.

Mr. Woodburn: In a recent Debate, when I raised this quesion, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury read a quotation from a previous Debate and from the Finance Act which gives firms authority to spend funds on canteens for which they would get relief from taxation.

Mr. Stokes: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case, but if he is right and I am wrong, I will take up the case

of this firm with the Government. They were categorically refused by the Treasury and were told that if at the end of the war a canteen which they put up was of no value they could get a refund from the Treasury. That, however, does not get the canteens now. If my hon. Friend is right, I have been wasting the time of the House, but I doubt whether what the Financial Secretary said is right. In any case, what he said is not always what the Civil Service does behind the scenes. If I am right, I would ask that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Food should get at the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not allow the dead hand of the Treasury to stop, as it always stops if it can, a development of the highest importance to the population of this country.

Mr. Collindridge: We who represent industrial constituencies would be ungrateful did we not accord our thanks to the Department for the announcement which has been made to-day. If, however, the thing has to be done, it is better that it should be done quickly. In a district like mine, which is largely a mining district, there is still a feeling that the question of food can better be dealt with in the homes than in canteens at the works. I doubt, however, whether the ration can be used as effectively in the individual homes as it can in communal centres like canteens. If we carry on with the idea of canteens we shall largely do away with that feeling. I represent a constituency which is connected with nearly a score of pits, and I do not think there is one which has a canteen where men can get a hot meal. When I come to London and have my meals in restaurants with no demand for coupons my family is considerably advantaged as compared with the ordinary family where all the members remain at home and have to be fed on the rations. I hope that we shall try to break down in the industrial constituencies the prejudice against canteens. I live in a district with a population of 20,000, and up to the advent of a restaurant this week there was no place where anyone could get a meal. The people have been living in an atmosphere in which the feeling was that restaurants were out of the question so far as they were concerned. I am sure that if there were a development of can teens, once the idea caught on and people were able to see what could be done with them, the prejudice would be considerably


lessened and a great deal of discontent and disquiet would fade away.
I want to ask the Ministry of Food to have regard to some of the orders and regulations that are now being issued. I do not want to run too many hares in my remarks, but I must refer to rabbits. In my constituency an order has been issued which allows the price of rabbits in one part to be 1s. 2d. per lb. and in the other 10d. a lb. Is it likely that those who have rabbits to sell will send them where they are to be sold at 10d. a lb.? Are they not more likely to send them where they will get 1s. 2d.? This means that districts which have been accustomed to consume this humble fare will be precluded from having it. With regard to the new order for the sale of unrationed goods, there may be something in the idea of allowing a person to go where he will for these goods, but the stern fact is that it will result in more queueing than hitherto. While I would not lay down too much compulsion on our people, I think that there is something to be said for the idea of giving the registered customer the opportunity of getting his unrationed commodities where he is registered. The shopkeeper would then know the people who are entitled to the unregistered goods.
I am sure that all Members, without political distinction, would wish to abolish queues, and I suggest that every local food control committee should hold an inquiry into the reasons for these queues and send in a report either to divisional headquarters or to the Food Ministry. I finish upon the note on which I began. While some people may have said that this idea of communal feeding is belated, at the same time I am sure there will be a great deal of gratification at the steps it is now proposed to take. I can understand the Food Ministry having regard not only to what has been done in the past in bringing food to our island home but having regard to what the future will be, and we who come from industrial districts, we ex-miners, say to the men of the sea, "You are doing jolly good service. You are helping us in the industrial effort which our people are putting forward."

Sir George Broadbridge: I feel that as one of the representatives of the City of London I should say a few words, and they will be mostly

directed to the question of British Restaurants. I think possibly there may be a little misunderstanding with regard to the position. I have made a few inquiries, and I find that the Corporation of the City of London have had nothing to do with establishing the British Restaurants in the City, which are under the control of the London County Council, who instituted them at the request of the Ministry of Food. Instead of there being only one British Restaurant, at Fishmongers' Hall, as has been said, I find that there are five within the City confines —at Aldersgate Ward Schools, at Cripple-gate Institute, at Fishmongers' Hall, at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, and at St. Sepulchre's School. I have no axe to grind for these British Restaurants if they are competing with ordinary catering firms in the City or elsewhere. They have been introduced as a supplement to the ordinary restaurants, immediately after air raids. But it is no use setting up a British Restaurant after an air raid has taken place, because then it is too late, and they are now there in readiness. Nearly all cafés and other catering establishments close at about 5 or 5.30 on account of the black-out, and it is very convenient to have the British Restaurants available after those hours.
I would draw attention to the fact that a good deal of the value attaching to these British Restaurants as compared with ordinary restaurants lies in the fact that they are absolutely independent of electricity or gas for cooking. That makes them able to render valuable service at times when the cooking facilities at ordinary restaurants are disorganised. After raids there is always a big demand for the services of British Restaurants, and they must be available at once, and that is one of the reasons why this great service has been introduced. Another point which has been lost sight of is that on account of the "blitzes" which have already taken place large numbers of ordinary restaurants are no longer in existence, and there is all the more need for British Restaurants. If one looks more closely into the position one can see the necessity for those restaurant proprietors who are at present complaining to work more readily for the benefit of workers who want to get meals quickly. In this matter I am in a somewhat dual position. I have to do the best I can to please everybody, but in a case like this I think ordinary


restaurants should be prepared to meet the other side half-way, regarding these supplemental canteens as a war effort and knowing that they are only for the war emergency period.

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that I can address the House again only by the leave of hon. Members, but I think I may be allowed to say these few words. First, I wish to express my appreciation of the attitude of hon. Members towards the proposals which I have put forward, and I would give the assurance on behalf of all concerned that every possible effort will be made to expedite the provision of more British Restaurants and canteens. I am extremely grateful to those hon. Members who from their own experience have explained what can be done where canteens are provided, and every effort will be made to extend them. Details will be issued as quickly as possible. Many other points have been raised by hon. Members which I do not propose to deal with to-day, but I have made a note of all points outside the main object of the Debate which have been brought forward, and I will give close attention to them.

Captain Cobb: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to pay special attention to the fate of the jam which is being made by Women's Institutes in many villages all over the country. I have been told by the chairman of my own village institute that they made about

70 lb. of jam under the Ministry of Food scheme, all of which has been condemned as unfit. A neighbouring village has made rather more than 90 lb. of jam which has met with the same fate, and I understand that sort of thing is pretty common throughout the country. These institutes have been told that they are not allowed to sell this jam to the local population, and can dispose of it only to canteens. These institutions are likely to have a far larger supply of jam than they will He able to deal with. Owing to the possibility of a very large amount of jam being wasted, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give special attention to the matter, in order that this result might not come about.

Major Lloyd George: I should not like the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend to give the impression in the country as a whole that large quantities of jam will be wasted throughout the country. There will, no doubt, be local difficulties; I have come across one or two recently in which we have been able to assist and adjust. Speaking generally, however, the position is not as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested. Difficulties have been encountered, but we have been enabled to smooth them out. If there is difficulty in the area to which he has referred, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity of looking into the matter.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.